Title
Supreme Court
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 108052
Decision Date
Jul 24, 1996
PNB intercepted funds intended for Lapez, claiming offset for double credits. Courts ruled interception improper, citing implied trust and rejecting legal compensation, upholding banking trust principles.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108052)

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court found that:
• PNB’s application of US$2,627.11 constituted improper interception of funds subject to an implied trust for Citibank’s credit and was not subject to compensation, since the five requisites of compensation under Article 1279 were not met.
• The P34,340.38 deduction from the Libya remittance was validly applied by compensation against Lapez’s quasi‐contractual obligation for solutio indebiti, as the remittance was intended for deposit in his PNB account and the compensation requisites were satisfied.
The court ordered PNB to pay Lapez US$2,627.11 (or its peso equivalent) with legal interest and dismissed all other counterclaims.

Appellate Court Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed:
• As correspondent bank, PNB’s sole duty was to transmit the Jeddah remittance to Citibank for Lapez. No creditor‐debtor relationship existed between PNB and Lapez as to that remittance; hence, compensation could not extinguish PNB’s trust obligation.
• PNB’s liability continued until full performance of its remittance obligation.
• The P34,340.38 compensation against the Libya remittance remained valid, as the funds were destined for Lapez’s PNB account and all five requisites of Article 1279 were present.

Issue on Legal Compensation and Prescription

PNB contended that legal compensation had occurred by virtue of mutual obligations arising from solutio indebiti, thus obviating its duty to return US$2,627.11. It further argued that requiring separate suits would frustrate speedy justice. Lapez asserted that no mutual principal obligations existed and that PNB’s interception violated the implied trust. Both courts also addressed whether PNB’s solutio indebiti claim had prescribed.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Compensation

Compensation under Article 1279 requires that each party be principal creditor and debtor of the other on liquidated, demandable obligations with no third‐party controversy. The Court held that:
• As to the US$2,627.11 remittance, PNB owed an implied trust duty to transmit the funds to Citibank, while Lapez’s only obligation to PNB was quasi‐contractual (solutio indebiti) arising from mistaken overpayments. These roles are not reciprocal principal obligations. Compensation therefore could not extinguish PNB’s trust duty to remit US$2,627.11.
• The P34,340.38 deduction satisfied all compensation requisites because the Libya re

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.