Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175816 2011-12-07	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. MA. ARLYN T. AVENIDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
[21]
	GR No. 168644 2010-02-16	BSB GROUP v. SALLY GO PERALTA, J.
What indeed constitutes the subject matter in litigation in relation to Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 has been pointedly and amply addressed in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[50] in which the Court noted that the inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action.[51] Given this perspective, we deduce that the subject matter of the action in the case at bar is to be determined from the indictment that charges respondent with the offense, and not from the evidence sought by the prosecution to be admitted into the records. In the criminal Information filed with the trial court, respondent, unqualifiedly and in plain language, is charged with qualified theft by abusing petitioner's trust and confidence and stealing cash in the amount of P1,534,135.50. The said Information makes no factual allegation that in some material way involves the checks subject of the testimonial and documentary evidence sought to be suppressed. Neither do the allegations in said Information make mention of the supposed bank account in which the funds represented by the checks have allegedly been kept.
	GR No. 163117 2009-12-18	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. MARIA LETICIA FERNANDEZ CARPIO, J.
Foreclosure is valid where the debtor is in default in the payment of an obligation.[23] The essence of a contract of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been identified or set apart from the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of money or the fulfillment of an obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness, in case of default in payment.[24] Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of the mortgage indebtedness.[25] In a real estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation.[26]
	GR NOS. 157294-95 2006-11-30	JOSEPH VICTOR G. EJERCITO v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Trust Account No. 858 is, without doubt, one such account. The Trust Agreement between petitioner and Urban Bank provides that the trust account covers "deposit, placement or investment of funds" by Urban Bank for and in behalf of petitioner.[6] The money deposited under Trust Account No. 858, was, therefore, intended not merely to remain with the bank but to be invested by it elsewhere. To hold that this type of account is not protected by R.A. 1405 would encourage private hoarding of funds that could otherwise be invested by banks in other ventures, contrary to the policy behind the law.