Title
Rivera vs. Ocampo
Case
G.R. No. L-5968
Decision Date
Aug 5, 1953
Dispute over P21,792.49 deposit; Supreme Court reversed withdrawal order, ruling substitution with bond inadequate, violating deposit principles and claimants' rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5968)

Factual Background

Atkins, Kroll & Co., Inc. deposited the sum of P21,792.49 with the court as part of an interpleader action due to conflicting claims against this amount. Jesus L. Uy claimed a preferential right over the sum, excluding the claims of Rizalina S. Rivera and the Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. The latter two admitted that Rizalina should be paid first from the deposit. On July 30, 1952, Cathay Ceramics, Inc. moved to withdraw the deposit, offering to replace it with a surety bond, which prompted opposition from Rizalina S. Rivera and the insurance company.

Court Proceedings and Key Orders

The motion by Cathay Ceramics was presented to Judge Zulueta but was referred to Judge Ocampo, who ruled on August 5, 1952, authorizing the Clerk of Court to release P19,800.00 to Jesus L. Uy and P1,992.49 to Cathay Ceramics, conditioned upon the securing of a surety bond. This order was contested by Rizalina S. Rivera and the insurance company, asserting Judge Ocampo’s decision exceeded his jurisdiction and requested a preliminary injunction to block the execution of this order while a certiorari petition was pending.

Claims of the Parties

Cathay Ceramics, Inc. contended that there was no legal provision preventing the withdrawal of the deposit as long as the rights of other interested parties were safeguarded by a surety bond. Conversely, petitioners argued that the conditions set forth in the court's order would frustrate the purpose of the deposit, emphasizing that the deposited amount was intended for distribution only upon a judicial determination of the claims of the involved parties.

Legal Principles Considered

The legal questions at hand involve whether the court had the authority to release the funds based on the provision of a surety bond rather than immediate cash distribution. The petitioners invoked legal principles relating to deposits under the Civil Code, specifically that a deposit allows the depositor to retain control over the deposited amount until rightful claims are fully adjudicated. The court's discretion in allowing the withdrawal, while potentially beneficial to one party, was argued to undermine the certainty and security originally intended by the deposit.

Court's Decision and Conclusion

The court ultimately ruled in favo

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.