Banks’ Set-Off Rights: Limits and Exceptions in Fund Transfers

n

G.R. No. 108052, July 24, 1996

n

Imagine you’re expecting a remittance from overseas, a crucial lifeline for your business. Suddenly, your bank informs you they’ve intercepted the funds to cover an old debt you supposedly owe them. Can they do that? This scenario highlights the complexities of set-off rights, where a bank attempts to recover debts by seizing incoming funds. The Supreme Court case of Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals and Ramon Lapez sheds light on the limitations of these rights, particularly when dealing with fund transfers intended for deposit in another bank.

nn

Understanding Legal Compensation and Set-Off

n

Legal compensation, also known as set-off, is a legal mechanism where two parties who are both debtors and creditors to each other can extinguish their obligations to the extent that their amounts are equal. Article 1279 of the Civil Code of the Philippines lays down the requirements for legal compensation to take place:

nn

n
• Each party must be bound principally as a debtor and a creditor of the other.

n

• Both debts must consist of a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated.

n

• The two debts must be due.

n

• They must be liquidated and demandable.

n

• There must be no retention or controversy commenced by third persons over either of the debts, communicated in due time to the debtor.

n

nn

In simpler terms, for compensation to occur, both debts must be clear, due, and uncontested, and the parties must be each other’s principal debtor and creditor. This principle is designed to streamline obligations and prevent unnecessary litigation. However, the crucial element is the existence of a reciprocal debtor-creditor relationship in the same capacity regarding both debts.

nn

For example, if Maria owes Pedro P10,000 for a loan, and Pedro owes Maria P8,000 for services rendered, legal compensation can occur, extinguishing Maria’s debt to P2,000. This assumes that both obligations are due, clear, and uncontested.

nn

The PNB vs. Lapez Case: A Story of Erroneous Credits and Intercepted Funds

n

Ramon Lapez, doing business as Sapphire Shipping, was the intended recipient of a fund transfer from abroad. Philippine National Bank (PNB), acting as a correspondent bank, intercepted these funds, specifically US$2,627.11, to offset alleged prior debts from erroneous double credits made to Lapez’s account in 1980 and 1981. Lapez sued PNB to recover the intercepted amount.

nn

The case unfolded as follows:

nn

n
• PNB had mistakenly credited Lapez’s account twice in 1980 and 1981, resulting in an overpayment of P87,380.44.

n

• Years later, in 1986, PNB demanded the return of the erroneous credits.

n

• Subsequently, a remittance of US$2,627.11 was sent by the National Commercial Bank of Jeddah (NCB) for the credit of Lapez’s account at Citibank, coursed through PNB.

n

• PNB intercepted this remittance, claiming legal compensation.

n

• Lapez sued, arguing that PNB had no right to seize funds intended for deposit in another bank.

n

nn

The trial court ruled in favor of Lapez, ordering PNB to pay the US$2,627.11 with interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. PNB then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

nn

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ rulings, emphasizing that PNB’s role as a correspondent bank did not give it the right to seize funds intended for deposit in another bank to offset a debt. The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining trust in the banking system, stating that such actions could