CREDIT CASES (deposit).doc

8/13/2019 CREDIT CASES (deposit).doc

1/68

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. L-66826 August 19, 1988

BANK OF THE PH L PP NE SLAN!S, petitioner,vs.THE NTERME! ATE APPELLATE COURT "#$ %SHORNACK respondents.

Pacis & Reyes Law Office for petitioner.

rnesto T. !shornac", #r. for private respondent.

$ORT S, J.:

The ori%inal parties to this case &ere Ri'ald( T. !shornac" and the $o))ercial *an" andTrust $o)pan( of the Philippines +hereafter referred to as $OMTR-ST. In /012, the*an" of the Philippine Islands 3hereafter referred to as *PI absorbed $OMTR-STthrou%h a corporate )er%er, and &as substituted as part( to the case.

Ri'ald( !shornac" initiated proceedin%s on #une 41,/056 b( filin% in the $ourt of 7irstInstance of Ri'al 8 $aloocan $it( a co)plaint a%ainst $OMTR-ST alle%in% four causesof action. 9cept for the third cause of action, the $7I ruled in favor of !shornac". The

ban" appealed to the Inter)ediate :ppellate $ourt &hich )odified the $7I decisionabsolvin% the ban" fro) liabilit( on the fourth cause of action. The pertinent portions ofthe ;ud%)ent, as )odified, readOIN>, the $ourt renders ;ud%)ent as follo&sarcia, :ssistant *ranch Mana%er of $OMTR-ST Gue'on $it(, pa(able to a certaineovi%ilda D. Di'on in the a)ount of C/,222.22. In the application, >arcia indicated thatthe a)ount &as to be char%ed to Dollar Savin%s :cct. No. 4?@A/20, the savin%s account

of the !shornac"sE the char%es for co))ission, docu)entar( sta)p ta9 and otherstotallin% P/5.A6 &ere to be char%ed to $urrent :cct. No. 4/2A6?@40, a%ain, the currentaccount of the !shornac"s. There &as no indication of the na)e of the purchaser of thedollar draft.

On the sa)e date, October 45,/05?, $OMTR-ST, under the si%nature of Vir%ilio V.>arcia, issued a chec" pa(able to the order of eovi%ilda D. Di'on in the su) of -SC/,222 dra&n on the $hase Manhattan *an", Ne& or", &ith an indication that it &as to

be char%ed to Dollar Savin%s :cct. No. 4?@A/20.

=hen !shornac" noticed the &ithdra&al of -SC/,222.22 fro) his account, he de)anded

an e9planation fro) the ban". In ans&er, $OMTR-ST clai)ed that the peso value of the&ithdra&al &as %iven to :tt(. rnesto !shornac", #r., brother of Ri'ald(, on October 45,/05? &hen he 3 rnestoB encashed &ith $OMTR-ST a cashierFs chec" for P1,A?2.22issued b( the Manila *an"in% $orporation pa(able to rnesto.

-pon consideration of the fore%oin% facts, this $ourt finds no reason to disturb the rulin%of both the trial court and the :ppellate $ourt on the first cause of action. Petitioner )ust

be held liable for the unauthori'ed &ithdra&al of -SC/,222.22 fro) private respondentFs


3/68

dollar account.

In its desperate atte)pt to ;ustif( its act of &ithdra&in% fro) its depositorFs savin%saccount, the ban" has adopted inconsistent theories. 7irst, it still )aintains that the pesovalue of the a)ount &ithdra&n &as %iven to :tt(. rnesto !shornac", #r. &hen the latter

encashed the Manilaban" $ashierFs $hec". :t the sa)e ti)e, the ban" clai)s that the&ithdra&al &as )ade pursuant to an a%ree)ent &here !shornac" alle%edl( authori'edthe ban" to &ithdra& fro) his dollar savin%s account such a)ount &hich, &henconverted to pesos, &ould be needed to fund his peso current account. If indeed the pesoeJuivalent of the a)ount &ithdra&n fro) the dollar account &as credited to the pesocurrent account, &h( did the ban" still have to pa( rnestoK

:t an( rate, both e9planations are unavailin%. =ith re%ard to the first e9planation, petitioner ban" has not sho&n ho& the transaction involvin% the cashierFs chec" is relatedto the transaction involvin% the dollar draft in favor of Di'on financed b( the &ithdra&alfro) Ri'ald(Fs dollar account. The t&o transactions appear entirel( independent of each

other. Moreover, rnesto !shornac", #r., possesses a personalit( distinct and separatefro) Ri'ald( !shornac". Pa()ent )ade to rnesto cannot be considered pa()ent toRi'ald(.

:s to the second e9planation, even if &e assu)e that there &as such an a%ree)ent, theevidence do not sho& that the &ithdra&al &as )ade pursuant to it. Instead, the recordreveals that the a)ount &ithdra&n &as used to finance a dollar draft in favor ofeovi%ilda D. Di'on, and not to fund the current account of the !shornac"s. There is no

proof &hatsoever that peso $urrent :ccount No. 4/2@A6?@40 &as ever credited &ith the peso eJuivalent of the -SC/,222.22 &ithdra&n on October 45, /05? fro) Dollar Savin%s:ccount No. 4?@A/20.

4. :s for the second cause of action, the co)plaint filed &ith the trial court alle%ed thaton Dece)ber 1, /05?, !shornac" entrusted to $OMTR-ST, thru >arcia, -S C ,222.22cash 3popularl( "no&n as %reenbac"sB for safekeeping, and that the a%ree)ent &ase)bodied in a docu)ent, a cop( of &hich &as attached to and )ade part of theco)plaint. The docu)ent readsarcia e9ceeded his po&ers &hen he entered into thetransaction. Hence, it is clai)ed, the ban" cannot be liable under the contract, and the

obli%ation is purel( personal to >arcia.*efore &e %o into the nature of the contract entered into, an i)portant point &hich ariseson the pleadin%s, )ust be considered.

The second cause of action is based on a docu)ent purportin% to be si%ned b($OMTR-ST, a cop( of &hich docu)ent &as attached to the co)plaint. In short, thesecond cause of action &as based on an actionable docu)ent. It &as therefore incu)bent


5/68

upon the ban" to specificall( den( under oath the due e9ecution of the docu)ent, as prescribed under Rule 1, Section 1, if it desired< 3/B to Juestion the authorit( of >arcia to bind the corporationE and 34B to den( its capacit( to enter into such contract. +See, .*.Merchant v. International *an"in% $orporation, 6 Phil. /A 3/026B. No s&orn ans&erden(in% the due e9ecution of the docu)ent in Juestion, or Juestionin% the authorit( of

>arcia to bind the ban", or den(in% the ban"Fs capacit( to enter into the contract, &asever filed. Hence, the ban" is dee)ed to have ad)itted not onl( >arciaFs authorit(, butalso the ban"Fs po&er, to enter into the contract in Juestion.

In the past, this $ourt had occasion to e9plain the reason behind this proceduralreJuire)ent.

The reason for the rule enunciated in the fore%oin% authorities &ill, &e thin", bereadil( appreciated. In dealin% &ith corporations the public at lar%e is bound torel( to a lar%e e9tent upon out&ard appearances. If a )an is found actin% for acorporation &ith the e9ternal indicia of authorit(, an( person, not havin% notice

of &ant of authorit(, )a( usuall( rel( upon those appearancesE and if it be foundthat the directors had per)itted the a%ent to e9ercise that authorit( and thereb(held hi) out as a person co)petent to bind the corporation, or had acJuiesced ina contract and retained the benefit supposed to have been conferred b( it, thecorporation &ill be bound, not&ithstandin% the actual authorit( )a( never have

been %ranted

... =hether a particular officer actuall( possesses the authorit( &hich he assu)esto e9ercise is freJuentl( "no&n to ver( fe&, and the proof of it usuall( is notreadil( accessible to the stran%er &ho deals &ith the corporation on the faith ofthe ostensible authorit( e9ercised b( so)e of the corporate officers. It is

therefore reasonable, in a case &here an officer of a corporation has )ade acontract in its na)e, that the corporation should be reJuired, if it denies hisauthorit(, to state such defense in its ans&er. *( this )eans the plaintiff isapprised of the fact that the a%entFs authorit( is contestedE and he is %iven anopportunit( to adduce evidence sho&in% either that the authorit( e9isted or thatthe contract &as ratified and approved. +Ra)ire' v. Orientalist $o. and7ernande', 1 Phil. 6 A, 6A?@ 6A6 3/0/1B.

PetitionerFs ar%u)ent )ust also be re;ected for another reason. The practical effect ofabsolvin% a corporation fro) liabilit( ever( ti)e an officer enters into a contract &hich is

be(ond corporate po&ers, even &ithout the proper alle%ation or proof that the corporationhas not authori'ed nor ratified the officerFs act, is to cast corporations in so perfect a )oldthat trans%ressions and &ron%s b( such artificial bein%s beco)e i)possible +*issell v.Michi%an Southern and N.I.R. $os 44 N. 4?1 3/162B. To sa( that a corporation has nori%ht to do unauthori'ed acts is onl( to put forth a ver( plain truis) but to sa( that such

bodies have no po&er or capacit( to err is to i)pute to the) an e9cellence &hich does not belon% to an( created e9istence &ith &hich &e are acJuainted. The distinction bet&een po&er and ri%ht is no )ore to be lost si%ht of in respect to artificial than in respect tonatural persons. + Ibid .


6/68

Havin% deter)ined that >arciaFs act of enterin% into the contract binds the corporation,&e no& deter)ine the correct nature of the contract, and its le%al conseJuences, includin%its enforceabilit(.

The docu)ent &hich e)bodies the contract states that the -SC ,222.22 &as received b(

the ban" for safe"eepin%. The subseJuent acts of the parties also sho& that the intent ofthe parties &as reall( for the ban" to safel( "eep the dollars and to return it to !shornac"at a later ti)e, Thus, !shornac" de)anded the return of the )one( on Ma( /2, /056, orover five )onths later.

The above arran%e)ent is that contract defined under :rticle /064, Ne& $ivil $ode,&hich readsold and 7orei%n 9chan%e Transactions, pro)ul%ated on Dece)ber 0,/0A0, &hich &as in force at the ti)e the parties entered into the transaction involved inthis case. The circular providesR:NT D b( deletin% the a&ard forattorne(Fs fees fro) the A #ul( /010 Decision of the respondent $ourt of :ppeals in $:@>.R. $V No. /?/?2. :s )odified, and sub;ect to the pronounce)ent =e )ade above onthe nature of the relationship bet&een the parties in a contract of lease of safet( deposit

bo9es, the dispositive portion of the said Decision is hereb( :77IRM D and the instantPetition for Revie& is other&ise D NI D for lac" of )erit.

No pronounce)ent as to costs.

SO ORD R D.

eliciano, idin, Ro!ero and /elo, JJ., conc#r .

*#tierre+, Jr., J., is on lea(e .


Manila

N *:N$

G.R. No. /&10 August 2/, 19&8

ANGEL AELLANA, plaintiff@appellee,vs.OSE L M, ET AL., defendants@appellants.

R. 0aldarriaga for appellants. . /ontinola for appellee.

TORRES, J. uin%ona #r., then NS :President, petitioner Martin, then NS : 9ecutive Vice@President of

NS : and petitioner Santos, then NS : >eneral Mana%erE that onMarch 4/, /01/ N : &as placed under receivership b( the $entral*an", so that David filed clai)s there&ith for his invest)ents and thoseof his sisterE that on #ul( 44, /01/ David received a report fro) the$entral *an" that onl( P 2?,14/.04 of those invest)ents &ere entered

in the records of NS :E that, therefore, the respondents in I.S. No. 1/@/0 1 )isappropriated the balance of the invest)ents, at the sa)e ti)eviolatin% $entral *an" $ircular No. 6A and related $entral *an"re%ulations on forei%n e9chan%e transactionsE that after de)ands,

petitioner >uin%ona #r. paid onl( P422,222.22, thereb( reducin% thea)ounts )isappropriated to P0?0,251./A and -SC5?,222.22.

Petitioners, Martin and Santos, filed a ;oint counter@affidavit 3Petition, :nne9F*FB in &hich the( stated the follo&in%. t23.45h)w64

That Martin beca)e President of NS : in March /051 3after theresi%nation of >uin%ona, #r.B and served as such until October 2, /012,&hile Santos &as >eneral Mana%er up to Nove)ber /012E that because

NS : &as ur%entl( in need of funds and at DavidFs insistence, hisinvest)ents &ere treated as special@ accounts &ith interest above thele%al rate, an recorded in separate confidential docu)ents onl( a portionof &hich &ere to be reported because he did not &ant the :ustralian%overn)ent to ta9 his total earnin%s 3norB to "no& his total invest)entsEthat all transactions &ith David &ere recorded e9cept the su) of


23/68

-SC/?,222.22 &hich &as a personal loan of SantosE that DavidFs chec"for -SC?2,222.22 &as cleared throu%h >uin%ona, #r.Fs dollar account

because NS : did not have one, that a draft of -SC 2,222.22 &as placed in the na)e of one Pa' Roces because of a pendin% transaction&ith herE that the Philippine Deposit Insurance $orporation had alread(

rei)bursed David &ithin the le%al li)itsE that )a;orit( of thestoc"holders of NS : had filed Special Proceedin%s No. 14@/60? in the$ourt of 7irst Instance to contest its 3NS :FsB closureE that after NS :&as placed under receivership, Martin e9ecuted a pro)issor( note inDavidFs favor and caused the transfer to hi) of a nine and on behalf 30/ 4B carat dia)ond rin% &ith a net value of P?/2,222.22E and, that theliabilities of NS : to David &ere civil in nature.

Petitioner, >uin%ona, #r., in his counter@affidavit 3Petition, :nne9F $FB stated thefollo&in%uin%ona #r.B had resi%ned as NS : president inMarch /051, or prior to those transactionsE that he assu)ed a portion oEthe liabilities of NS : to David because of the latterFs insistence that he

placed his invest)ents &ith NS : because of his faith in >uin%ona, #r.Ethat in a Pro)issor( Note dated #une /5, /01/ 3Petition, :nne9 D B he3>uin%ona, #r.B bound hi)self to pa( David the su)s of P661. 25.2/and -SC 5,?22.22 in stated install)entsE that he 3>uin%ona, #r.B secured

pa()ent of those a)ounts &ith second )ort%a%es over t&o 34B parcelsof land under a deed of Second Real state Mort%a%e 3Petition, :nne9

B in &hich it &as provided that the )ort%a%e over one 3/B parcel

shall be cancelled upon pa()ent of one@half of the obli%ation to DavidEthat he 3>uin%ona, #r.B paid P422,222.22 and tendered anotherP 22,222.22 &hich David refused to accept, hence, he 3>uin%ona, #r.Bfiled $ivil $ase No. G@ 16? in the $ourt of 7irst Instance of Ri'al atGue'on $it(, to effect the release of the )ort%a%e over one 3/B of thet&o parcels of land conve(ed to David under second )ort%a%es.

:t the inception of the preli)inar( investi%ation before respondent ota, petitioners )oved to dis)iss the char%es a%ainst the) for lac" of ;urisdiction because DavidFs clai)s alle%edl( co)prised a purel( civil obli%ation &hich &asitself novated. 7iscal ota denied the )otion to dis)iss 3Petition, p. 1B.

*ut, after the presentation of DavidFs principal &itness, petitioners filed theinstant petition because< 3aB the production of the Pro)isor( Notes, *an"erFs:cceptance, $ertificates of Ti)e Deposits and Savin%s :ccount alle%edl(sho&ed that the transactions bet&een David and NS : &ere si)ple loans, i.e.,civil obli%ations on the part of NS : &hich &ere novated &hen >uin%ona, #r.and Martin assu)ed the)E and 3bB DavidFs principal &itness alle%edl( testifiedthat the duplicate ori%inals of the aforesaid instru)ents of indebtedness &ere all


24/68

on file &ith NS :, contrar( to DavidFs clai) that so)e of his invest)ents &erenot record 3Petition, pp. 1@0B.

Petitioners alle%ed that the( did not e9haust available ad)inistrative re)edies because to do so &ould be futile 3Petition, p. 0B +pp. /? @/?5, rec. .

:s correctl( pointed out b( the Solicitor >eneral, the sole issue for resolution is &hether public respondents acted &ithout ;urisdiction &hen the( investi%ated the char%es 3estafaand violation of $* $ircular No. 6A and related re%ulations re%ardin% forei%n e9chan%etransactionsB sub;ect )atter of I.S. No. 1/@ /0 1.

There is )erit in the contention of the petitioners that their liabilit( is civil in nature andtherefore, public respondents have no ;urisdiction over the char%e of estafa.

: casual perusal of the Dece)ber 4 , /01/ affidavit. co)plaint filed in the Office of the$it( 7iscal of Manila b( private respondent David a%ainst petitioners Teopisto >uin%ona,

#r., :ntonio I. Martin and Teresita >. Santos, to%ether &ith one Robert Marshall and theother directors of the Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation, &ill sho& that fro) March42, /050 to March, /01/, private respondent David, to%ether &ith his sister, DeniseLuhne, invested &ith the Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation the su) of P/,/A?,?A6.42on ti)e deposits covered b( *an"ers :cceptances and $ertificates of Ti)e Deposits andthe su) of P/ ,? /.0A on savin%s account deposits covered b( passboo" nos. 6@6 4 and40@5A4, or a total of P/,/?0,251./A 3pp. /?@/6, roc.B. It appears further that privaterespondent David, to%ether &ith his sister, )ade invest)ents in the aforesaid ban" in thea)ount of -SC5?,222.22 3p. /5, rec.B.

Moreover, the records reveal that &hen the aforesaid ban" &as placed under receivership

on March 4/, /01/, petitioners >uin%ona and Martin, upon the reJuest of privaterespondent David, assu)ed the obli%ation of the ban" to private respondent David b(e9ecutin% on #une /5, /01/ a ;oint pro)issor( note in favor of private respondentac"no&led%in% an indebtedness of Pl, 6,6/A.24 and -SC5?,222.22 3p. 12, rec.B. This

pro)issor( note &as based on the state)ent of account as of #une 2, /01/ prepared b(the private respondent 3p. 1/, rec.B. The a)ount of indebtedness assu)ed appears to be

bi%%er than the ori%inal clai) because of the added interest and the inclusion of otherdeposits of private respondentFs sister in the a)ount of P//6,6/ .42.

Thereafter, or on #ul( /5, /01/, petitioners >uin%ona and Martin a%reed to divide the saidindebtedness, and petitioner >uin%ona e9ecuted another pro)issor( note antedated to

#une /5, /01/ &hereb( he personall( ac"no&led%ed an indebtedness of P661, 25.2/ 3/ 4of P/, 6,6/A.24B and -SC 5,?22.22 3/ 4 of -SC5?,222.22B in favor of privaterespondent 3p. 4?, rec.B. The aforesaid pro)issor( notes &ere e9ecuted as a result ofdeposits )ade b( $le)ent David and Denise Luhne &ith the Nation Savin%s and oan:ssociation.

7urther)ore, the various pleadin%s and docu)ents filed b( private respondent David, before this $ourt indisputabl( sho& that he has indeed invested his )one( on ti)e and


25/68

savin%s deposits &ith the Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation.

It )ust be pointed out that &hen private respondent David invested his )one( on nine.and savin%s deposits &ith the aforesaid ban", the contract that &as perfected &as acontract of si)ple loan or !#t##! and not a contract of deposit. Thus, :rticle /012 of the

Ne& $ivil $ode provides that< t23.45h)w64

:rticle /012. 7i9ed, savin%s, and current deposits of@)one( in ban"s and si)ilarinstitutions shall be %overned b( the provisions concernin% si)ple loan.

In the case of %entral ank of the Philippines (s. /orfe 36 S$R: //A,//0 +/05? , =esaidopoco >rocer(vs. Pacific $oast *iscuit $O.,6? Phil. AA B.

This $ourt also declared in the recent case of 7errano (s. %entral ank of the Philippines306 S$R: /24 +/012 B that< t23.45h)w64

*an" deposits are in the nature of irre%ular deposits. The( are reall( Floans because the( earn interest. :ll "inds of ban" deposits, &hether fi9ed, savin%s, or

current are to be treated as loans and are to be covered b( the la& on loans 3:rt./012 $ivil $ode >ullas vs. Phil. National *an", 64 Phil. ?/0B. %#rrent and sa(ing deposits, are loans to a bank beca#se it can #se the sa)e. The petitionerhere in )a"in% ti)e deposits that earn interests &ill respondent Overseas *an"of Manila &as in realit( a creditor of the respondent *an" and not a depositor.The respondent *an" &as in turn a debtor of petitioner. ail#re of therespondent ank to honor the ti!e deposit is fail#re to pay its obligation as adebtor and not a breach of tr#st arising fro! a depositary8s fail#re to ret#rn the

s#b'ect !atter of the deposit 3 )phasis suppliedB.

Hence, the relationship bet&een the private respondent and the Nation Savin%s and oan

:ssociation is that of creditor and debtorE conseJuentl(, the o&nership of the a)ountdeposited &as trans)itted to the *an" upon the perfection of the contract and it can )a"euse of the a)ount deposited for its ban"in% operations, such as to pa( interests ondeposits and to pa( &ithdra&als. =hile the *an" has the obli%ation to return the a!o#ntdeposited, it has, ho&ever, no obli%ation to return or deliver the sa!e !oney that &asdeposited. :nd, the failure of the *an" to return the a)ount deposited &ill not constituteestafa throu%h )isappropriation punishable under :rticle /?, par. l3bB of the RevisedPenal $ode, but it &ill onl( %ive rise to civil liabilit( over &hich the public respondents


26/68


27/68

arisin% fro) deposit into a contract of loan and convertin% the ori%inal trust relation bet&een the ban" and private respondent David into an ordinar( debtor@creditor relation bet&een the petitioners and private respondent. $onseJuentl(, the failure of the ban" or petitioners >uin%ona and Martin to pa( the deposits of private respondent &ould notconstitute a breach of trust but &ould )erel( be a failure to pa( the obli%ation as a debtor.

Moreover, &hile it is true that novation does not e9tin%uish cri)inal liabilit(, it )a(ho&ever, prevent the rise of cri)inal liabilit( as lon% as it occurs prior to the filin% of thecri)inal infor)ation in court. Thus, in *on+ales (s. 7errano 3 4? S$R: 6A, 60 +/061 B=e held that< t23.45h)w64

:s pointed out in People (s. ery , novation prior to the filin% of the cri)inalinfor)ation 8 as in the case at bar 8 )a( convert the relation bet&een the

parties into an ordinar( creditor@debtor relation, and place the co)plainant inestoppel to insist on the ori%inal transaction or cast doubt on the true naturethereof.

:%ain, in the latest case of Ong (s. %o#rt of $ppeals 3 @?1A56, /4A S$R: ?51, ?12@?1/+/01 B, this $ourt reiterated the rulin% in People (s. ery 3 /2 S$R: 4AA +/06A B,declarin% that


28/68

$onseJuentl(, as aforestated, an( incipient cri)inal liabilit( &ould be avoided but there&ill still be a civil liabilit( on the part of petitioners >uin%ona and Martin to pa( theassu)ed obli%ation.

Petitioners herein &ere li"e&ise char%ed &ith violation of Section of $entral *an"

$ircular No. 6A and other related re%ulations re%ardin% forei%n e9chan%e transactions b(acceptin% forei%n currenc( deposit in the a)ount of -SC5?,222.22 &ithout authorit(fro) the $entral *an". The( contend ho&ever, that the -S dollars intended b(respondent David for deposit &ere all converted into Philippine currenc( beforeacceptance and deposit into Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation.

PetitionersF contention is &orth( of behelf for the follo&in% reasonsuin%ona )erel( acco))odated the reJuest of the Nation Savin%sand loan :ssociation in order to clear the ban" draft throu%h his dollar account becausethe ban" did not have a dollar account. I))ediatel( after the ban" draft &as cleared,

petitioner >uin%ona authori'ed Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation to &ithdra& thesa)e in order to be utili'ed b( the ban" for its operations.

4. It is safe to assu)e that the -.S. dollars &ere converted first into Philippine pesos before the( &ere accepted and deposited in Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation, because the ban" is presu)ed to have follo&ed the ordinar( course of the business &hich

is to accept deposits in Philippine currenc( onl(, and that the transaction &as re%ular andfair, in the absence of a clear and convincin% evidence to the contrar( 3see para%raphs pand ), Sec. ?, Rule / /, Rules of $ourtB.

. Respondent David has not denied the aforesaid contention of herein petitioners despitethe fact that it &as raised. in petitionersF repl( filed on Ma( 5, /014 to privaterespondentFs co))ent and in the #ul( 45, /014 repl( to public respondentsF co))ent andreiterated in petitionersF )e)orandu) filed on October 2, /014, thereb( addin% )oresupport to the conclusion that the -SC5?,222.22 &ere reall( converted into Philippinecurrenc( before the( &ere accepted and deposited into Nation Savin%s and oan:ssociation. $onsiderin% that this )i%ht adversel( affect his case, respondent Davidshould have pro)ptl( denied petitionersF alle%ation.

In conclusion, considerin% that the liabilit( of the petitioners is purel( civil in nature andthat there is no clear sho&in% that the( en%a%ed in forei%n e9chan%e transactions, =ehold that the public respondents acted &ithout ;urisdiction &hen the( investi%ated thechar%es a%ainst the petitioners. $onseJuentl(, public respondents should be restrainedfro) further proceedin% &ith the cri)inal case for to allo& the case to continue, even ifthe petitioners could have appealed to the Ministr( of #ustice, &ould &or" %reat in;ustice


29/68

to petitioners and &ould render )eanin%less the proper ad)inistration of ;ustice.

=hile as a rule, the prosecution in a cri)inal offense cannot be the sub;ect of prohibitionand in;unction, this court has reco%ni'ed the resort to the e9traordinar( &rits of

prohibition and in;unction in e9tre)e cases, thus< t23.45h)w64

On the issue of &hether a &rit of in;unction can restrain the proceedin%s in$ri)inal $ase No. /A2, the %eneral rule is that ordinaril(, cri)inal prosecution)a( not be bloc"ed b( court prohibition or in;unction. 9ceptions, ho&ever, areallo&ed in the follo&in% instances< t23.45h)w64

/. for the orderl( ad)inistration of ;usticeE

4. to prevent the use of the stron% ar) of the la& in an oppressive andvindictive )annerE

. to avoid )ultiplicit( of actionsE

A. to afford adeJuate protection to constitutional ri%htsE

?. in proper cases, because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or&as held invalid 3 Pri)icias vs. Municipalit( of -rdaneta, Pan%asinan,0 S$R: A64, A60@A52 +/050 E citin% Ra)os vs. Torres, 4? S$R: ??5+/061 E and Hernande' vs. :lbano, /0 S$R: 0?, 06 +/065 B.

i"e&ise, in Lope+ (s. The %ity J#dge, et al. 3 /1 S$R: 6/6, 64/@644 +/066 B, =e heldthat


30/68

SO ORD R D. BCwphDB.3Et

%oncepcion, Jr., *#errero, -e %astro and Ascolin, JJ., conc#r.

$bad 7antos, J., conc#r in the res#lt.

:Juino, #., too" no part.

EN BANC

4G.R. No. L-6&&++. u35 18, 1980.

TEOF STO GU NGONA, R., ANTON O . MART N, "#$ TERES TA SANTOS, Petitioners , 7. THE C T F SCAL OF MAN LA, HON. OSE B. FLAM N ANO,

ASST. C T F SCAL FEL %AR!O N. LOTA "#$ CLEMENT !A !, Respondents .

Lo( # o T":"$", T o; sto Gu #go#" "#$ F 3 ) "#o C. Tueneral did not file an( )otion for reconsiderationE that Davidcannot adopt a theor( &hich is inconsistent &ith his ori%inal theor(E that his clai) isclearl( civil, not cri)inalE that his clai) has been novated, and that prohibition is properto stop a void proceedin%, to prevent the unla&ful and oppressive e9ercise of la&ful


31/68

authorit( and to provide a ;ust and orderl( ad)inistration of ;ustice.

The petitioners filed this prohibition action because their obli%ation is alle%edl( civil incharacter and because of the adverse publicit( supposedl( insti%ated b( David.

The factual bac"%round )a( be restated as follo&suin%ona, #r. &ith the Securit(*an" and Trust $o)pan(.

:%%re%ate invest)ents of David and Luhne in Nation Savin%s< P/,/?0,251./A in localcurrenc( and 5?,222 in -.S. dollars. Nation Savin%s alle%edl( paid David fro) /050 tothe earl( part of /01/ interests of P4A2,222 a (ear 3p. /0 , RolloB.chanrobles la&librar( . Santos &as its %eneral )ana%er, and >uin%ona &as a director.

4. On March 4/, /01/, Nation Savin%s &as placed under receivership b( the $entral*an" because of serious fraud and irre%ularities co))itted b( its "e( officers 3:nne9/4B.

. On #une /5, /01/, >uin%ona and Martin e9ecuted a pro)issor( note ac"no&led%in% adebt of P/, 6,6/A.24 and C5?,222 to be paid in install)ents &ithin /12 da(s fro) saiddate &ith interest at /6Q per annu) fro) #ul( /, /01/ until full( paid.

A. The pro)issor( note &as novated b( another note, antedated #une /5, /01/, &hereb(>uin%ona ac"no&led%ed one@half of the obli%ation as his debt or the su)s ofP661, 25.2/ and C 5,?22 and secured the sa)e b( second )ort%a%es on his Gue'on $it(

properties 3:nne9 DB. >uin%ona paid P422,222 on that note.

?. Martin assu)ed the other half of the total debt. He secured it &ith the pled%e of a rin%valued accordin% to hi) at P?62,222 but appraised b( a ;e&el appraiser at P412,222.Martin is also indebted to David in the su) of P62,222 &hich David paid to Monte dePiedad to redee) the rin%.

6. On #ul( 44, /01/, David received a report fro) the $entral *an" that onl(


32/68

P 2?,14/.04 of the place)ents )ade b( hi) and his sister &ere entered in the NS :records 3:nne9 A, p. 4/1, RolloB. The director of the $* Depart)ent of Rural *an"s andSavin%s and oan :ssociations in a report dated #une 4 , /01/ reco))ended that theirre%ularities be brou%ht to the attention of the $* consultant on cri)inal cases forappropriate investi%ation of Nation Savin%s officials 3p. 4A2, RolloB.

5. In vie& of the pro)issor( note and the )ort%a%es, David, on #ul( 44, /01/, e9ecutedan affidavit &herein he bound hi)self to desist fro) an( prosecution of >uin%ona&ithout pre;udice to the balance of his clai) a%ainst Nation Savin%s 3:nne9 M, p. A6,RolloB.

1. On Nove)ber /0, /01/, >uin%ona filed a%ainst David $ivil $ase No. G@ 16? in theGue'on $it( $ourt of 7irst Instance. He pra(ed for da)a%es of P51?,222 a%ainst Davidfor his failure to accept pa()ent of a cashier s chec" for P 22,222 3in addition to theP422,222B and to release one of the )ort%a%ed properties 3:nne9 L, p. 5, RolloB.

0. On Dece)ber 44, /01/, David filed &ith the $it( 7iscal s Office, Manila I.S. No. 1/@/0 1, a co)plaint for estafa and violation of $* $ircular No. 6A and relatedre%ulations. He clai)ed that the difference bet&een his place)ents of P/,/?0,251./A andC5?,222, on one hand, and the su) of P 2?,14/.04, the a)ount entered in NationSavin%s boo"s, on the other hand, constitutes the defraudation a%ainst hi).chanroblesvirtual la&librar(

/2. He filed the co)plaint a%ainst >uin%ona, as board chair)an, director and principalstoc"holder of Nation Savin%sE Martin, as vice@president, director and shareholder, andSantos, as %eneral )ana%er. David dealt directl( &ith >uin%ona, Martin and Santos in histransactions &ith Nation Savin%s. The three filed a counter@char%e of per;ur( a%ainstDavid and his la&(ers 3p. ?0, RolloB.

//. On #anuar( 42, /014, David sou%ht to foreclose e9tra;udiciall( the t&o )ort%a%es 3p.?1, RolloB. The foreclosure &as restrained b( the Gue'on $it( $ourt of 7irst Instance.

/4. On March /?, /014, the Solicitor >eneral, in behalf of the $entral *an", filed a petition in the $ourt of 7irst Instance of Manila for assistance in the liJuidation of NationSavin%s as an insolvent fir) 3Spec. Proc. No. 14@5??4, p. ///, RolloB. The receivership&as challen%ed b( Nation Savin%s stoc"holders in Special Proceedin%s No. 14@/6?? 3p./4?, RolloB. The Solicitor >eneral ans&ered that petition b( alle%in% that Nation Savin%s&as pla%ued &ith irre%ularities 3p. 44?, RolloB.

=ith the fore%oin% bac"%round, the prohibition petition should be dis)issed. The petitioners have no cause of action for prohibition because the $it( 7iscal has ;urisdictionto conduct the preli)inar( investi%ation. It has not been finished. The filin% of this

petition is pre)ature. The case does not fall &ithin an( of the e9ceptions &hen prohibition lies to stop the preli)inar( investi%ation 3Hernande' v. :lbano, /4? Phil.?/ B.


33/68

:s a %eneral rule, an in;unction &ill not be %ranted to restrain a cri)inal prosecution3People v. Mencias, /4A Phil. /A 6, /AA/B. =ith )ore reason &ill in;unction not lie &henthe case is still at the preli)inar( investi%ation sta%e. This $ourt should not usurp the

pri)ar( function of the $it( 7iscal to conduct the preli)inar( investi%ation of the estafachar%e and of the petitioners counterchar%e for per;ur(, &hich &as consolidated &ith the

estafa char%e 3p. ?0, RolloB.

The $it( 7iscal s office should be allo&ed to finish its investi%ation and )a"e its factualfindin%s. This $ourt should not conduct the preli)inar( investi%ation. It is not a trier offacts.

The instant case is pri)aril( a liti%ation bet&een David and the petitioners. The fact thatthe Solicitor >eneral, as counsel of the public respondents, did not file a )otion forreconsideration does not estop David fro) continuin% &ith the prosecution of the

petitioners. In the present posture of the case, the $it( 7iscal occupies the analo%ous position of ;ud%e. He has to )aintain an attitude of neutralit(, not that of partialit(.

In vie& of the fore%oin% considerations, the decision is reconsidered, the petition isdis)issed and the $it( 7iscal of Manila is directed to finish the preli)inar( investi%ation.

No costs.chanrobles la& librar(

SO ORD R D.

scolin, >utierre', #r., De la 7uente and $uevas, JJ. , concur.

7ernando, %.J., too" no part.

:bad Santos, J. , I vote to den( the )otion for reconsideration.

Plana, J. , too" no part.

S "("t O # o#s

$ON$ P$ION, #R., J. , Separate Vote and State)ent


34/68

boo"s of the said :ssociation.

:t the start of the investi%ation, petitioners )oved to dis)iss the case for lac" of ;urisdiction because the clai)s alle%ed in the char%e co)pro)ise a purel( civil obli%ation&hich has been novated, &hich )otion &as pro)ptl( denied.

The first &itness of private respondent David &as the Deput( Receiver of the $entral*an", Mrs. u Donato. :fter her testi)on(, petitioners a%ain )oved to dis)iss the caseon the sa)e %round. This &as also denied. Hence this petition.

The issue before -s is< $an =e or should =e stop the $it( 7iscal fro) co)pletin% his preli)inar( investi%ation on the %round that the char%es are civil in natureK

I hold =e cannot and =e should not.

In the co)plaint before the $it( 7iscal s Office, there are so)e other respondents aside

fro) petitioners. In addition to estafa, there are char%es of violation of $entral *an"circulars. To deter)ine &ho are liable, if an(, and for &hat char%es reJuires that the presentation of evidence be co)pleted.chanroblesvirtuala&librar(

The procedure laid do&n b( la& is for the $it( 7iscal to co)plete his investi%ation andthereafter to )a"e a resolution.

=hatever be the resolution is sub;ect to revie& b( the Ministr( of #ustice.

In the case before -s, prohibition does not lie to stop the preli)inar( investi%ation bein%conducted b( the $it( 7iscal.

To hold other&ise, &ould be to usurp the duties and functions of the $it( 7iscal and the po&er to revie& the resolution of the $it( 7iscal b( the Ministr( of #ustice.

The Solicitor >eneral is onl( a no)inal part( at )ost. The People of the Philippines isnot a part( to the entire proceedin%s, and as provided for b( la& the actuations of the $it(7iscal have been defended b( respondent David.

R OV:, J. , concurrin%


35/68

and to render his resolution thereon. Thereafter, the a%%rieved part( )a( appeal to theMinister of #ustice.

The contention of petitioner that the resolution of the $ourt %rantin% the petition for prohibition has beco)e final because the Solicitor >eneral, representin% the $it( 7iscal,

did not file a )otion for reconsideration, is &ithout )erit. The rule is clear that &hen a petition for prohibition is filed, the petitioner shall ;oin as parties defendant the person or persons interested in sustainin% the proceedin%s in the courtE and it should be the dut( ofsuch person or persons to appear and defend, both in his or their o&n behalf and in behalfof the court or ;ud%e affected b( the proceedin%s in the court. It )ust be for this reasonthat the Solicitor >eneral did not file a )otion for reconsideration on the resolution ofthis $ourt %rantin% the petition because it &as incu)bent upon the private respondent toappear and defend the act of the respondent $it( 7iscal.

:la)pa(, J. , I share the sa)e vie& e9pressed b( #ustice Relova in this case.

Melencio@Herrera, J. , concurrin%


36/68


37/68

served the purpose of a continuation of the preli)inar( investi%ation, to secure theinnocent a%ainst hast(, )alicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect hi) fro) anopen and public accusation of cri)e, fro) the trouble, e9pense and an9iet( of a publictrial, and also to protect the state fro) useless and e9pensive trials. 3Trocio v. Manta, //1S$R: 4A/E citin% Hashi) v. *oncan, 5/ Phil. 4/6B. A =ith all due deference, nothin%

&ould be %ained nor achieved b( still directin% the fiscal to finish the preli)inar(investi%ation, &hen the issue of cri)inal liabilit( or not has been sub)itted to andresolved b( this $ourt. In no &a( is the Juestion of ;urisdiction of the cit( fiscal toconduct the preli)inar( investi%ation dero%ated or i)paired, as is the thrust of theResolution and Mr. #ustice Relova s separate opinion 8 particularl(, since the )a;orit( inadoptin% the Resolution )ade it clear in the deliberations that it &as in no &a( passin%

;ud%)ent upon the e9istence or non@e9istence of cri)inal liabilit( 8 as resolved anddeter)ined ne%ativel( in the ori%inal ;ud%)ent of :pril A, /01A 8 but &as onl( directin%the fiscal to continue &ith and ter)inate the investi%ation on the pre)ise that the filin%of this petition is pre)ature, 3at pa%e ?B The onl( point is that the said ;ud%)ent has lon%

beco)e final and e9ecutor( on :pril 4 , /01A and the per)anent in;unction issued

therein a%ainst further continuation of the investi%ation can no lon%er be set aside.?. This is in accord &ith the %eneral polic( that the fiscal s office should not be used orabused as a collection a%enc(. =e have here the case of a non@resident alien, respondent$le)ent David, &ho ca)e here for special treat)ent for his invest)ents as specialaccounts and onl( a portion of &hich &as to be reported because he did not &ant the:ustralian %overn)ent to ta9 his total earnin%s, nor to "no& his total invest)ents. ?=hen thin%s &ent a&r(, he )ade sure that he &as full( covered &ith collaterals b(

petitioners, &ho e9ecuted the) in all %ood faith and he in turn e9ecuted an affidavit ofdesistance. He cannot and should not be allo&ed to )isuse our prosecutorial a%encies forcollection or enforce)ent of a purel( civil liabilit(.

M:L:SI:R, J. , dissentin%


38/68

:s e9pressl( stated b( the Solicitor >eneral in his )anifestation dated :u%ust 4 , /01Aand filed on :u%ust 41, /01A,. . . 4. the office of the Solicitor >eneral received the cop(of the aforesaid decision on :pril 6, /01A, and did not file a )otion for reconsideration,hence, the Decision beca)e e9ecutor( as to the public respondent on :pril 44, /01A 3p.A/1, rec.B.

= ruled in Sin%h v. ibert( Insurance $orp. 31 S$R: ?/5, ?42 +/06 B that< as a%ainstother parties adversel( affected b( the decision &ho did not appeal the decision )ust bedee)ed to have beco)e final and e9ecutor(. : contrar( vie& &ould lead to indefeasibleresults. crala& virtua/a& librar(

Since the Solicitor >eneral has supervision and control over a cri)inal action 3in thiscase, herein petitioners &ere char%ed &ith estafa and violation of Section of $entral*an" $ircular No. 6A and Nos. A and 16? on forei%n e9chan%eE par. / of Section A,Rule //2, Revised Rules of $ourt of /06AB, the aforesaid decision of :pril A, /01A shallli"e&ise be considered as final and e9ecutor( &ith respect to herein private respondent

$le)ent David &ho cannot adopt a stand inconsistent &ith that of the 7iscal.= held in Tan #r. v. >allardo 35 S$R: 26, //@ /A +/056 B


39/68

person in;ured b( the co))ission of the offense ceases b( virtue of the principle that theaccessor( follo&s the principal. $onseJuentl(, as the offended part( is not entitled torepresent the People of the Philippine Islands in the prosecution of a public offense, or tocontrol the proceedin% once it is co))enced, and as his ri%ht to intervene therein issub;ect to the pro)oter fiscal s ri%ht of control, it cannot 3sicB be stated that an order of

dis)issal decreed upon petition of the pro)oter fiscal hi)self deprives the offended part(of his ri%ht to appeal fro) an order overrulin% a co)plaint or infor)ation, &hich ri%ht belon%s e9clusivel( to the pro)oter fiscal b( virtue of the provisions of section AA of>eneral Order No. ?1. To per)it a person in;ured b( the co))ission of an offense toappeal fro) an order dis)issin% a cri)inal case issued b( a $ourt of 7irst Instance upon

petition of the pro)oter fiscal, &ould be tanta)ount to %ivin% said offended part( of thedirection and control of a cri)inal proceedin% in violation of the provisions of the above@cited section /25 of >eneral Order No. ?1.

" " "

It is evident, therefore, that since the Solicitor >eneral alone is authori'ed to representthe State or the People of the Philippines, the interest of the private prosecutors issubordinate to that of the State and the( cannot be allo&ed to ta"e a stand inconsistent&ith that of the Solicitor >eneral, for that &ould be tanta)ount to %ivin% the latter thedirection and control of the cri)inal proceedin%s, contrar( to the provisions of la& andthe settled rules on the )atter 3pp. //@ /AE Italics s#pplied B.

:%ain, in the case of $abral v. Puno 352 S$R: 626@6/2 +/056 B, citin% several cases, =eruled that< =hile it is true that the offended part(, Silvino San Die%o, throu%h the private

prosecutor, filed a )otion for reconsideration &ithin the re%le)entar( fifteen@da( period,such )ove did not stop the runnin% of the period for appeal. He did not have the le%al personalit( to appeal or to file a )otion for reconsideration on his behalf. The prosecutionin a cri)inal case throu%h the private prosecutor is under the direction and control of the7iscal, and onl( the )otion for reconsideration or appeal filed b( the 7iscal could haveinterrupted a period for appeal 3 Italics s#pplied B.chanrobles virtuala&librar(chanrobles.co)


40/68

S$R: ?51, ?12@1/ +/01 penned b( #ustice Relova, concurred in b( #ustices Melencio@Herrera, Plana, VasJue' and >utierre'B. In said On% case, Mr. #ustice Relova Juoted Mr.#ustice #.*. . Re(es in People v. Ner( 3/2 S$R: 4AAB, thusuin%ona, #r., :ntonio I. Martin, andTeresita Santos &ere respectivel( Director, President and >eneral Mana%er of the NationSavin%s and oan :ssociation 3NS :B fro) March, /051 until October or Nove)ber,/012. 7ro) March 42, /050 to March, /01/, private respondent David, an :ustralianciti'en, invested &ith the NS : 8 dealin% directl( &ith petitioners Martin and Santos as

NS : President and >eneral Mana%er 8 the su) of P/,/A?,?A6.42 on ti)e deposits,P/ ,? /.0A on savin%s account deposits 3;ointl( &ith his sister Denise LuhneBE-SC/2,222.22 on ti)e deposits, -SC/?,222.22 under receipts and %uarantee of pa()ent


41/68

and -SC?2,222.22 under a receipt dated #une 1, /012 3all ;ointl( &ith Denise LuhneBEthat upon private respondent David s insistence, the aforesaid invest)ents &ere treated asspecial accounts &ith interest above the le%al rate, and recorded in separate confidentialdocu)entsE that onl( a portion of said deposits or invest)ents &ere to be reported

because respondent David did not &ant the :ustralian %overn)ent to ta9 his total

earnin%s nor to "no& his total invest)ents. :ll transactions &ith private respondentDavid &ere recorded e9cept the su) of -SC/?,222.22 &hich &as a personal loan toSantos.

The chec" of -SC?2,222.22 &as cleared thru >uin%ona s dollar account &ith the Securit(*an" because NS : did not have an( dollar account.

Thereafter, respondent David, as he hi)self ad)itted, received periodic interests on hisdeposits avera%in% P?,222.22 a &ee" 3pp. 05@ 01, rec.B.

=hen the NS : &as placed under receivership on March 4/, /01/, petitioners >uin%ona

and Martin, upon reJuest of private respondent David, assu)ed the obli%ation of the*an" to respondent David and e9ecuted on #une /5, /01/ a pro)issor( note in favor ofDavid ac"no&led%in% indebtedness of P/, 6,6/A.24 and -SC5?,222.22 3p. 12, rec.B,&hich a)ounts &ere based on the state)ent of account as of #une 2, /01/ prepared b(

private respondent David hi)self.

Thereafter, on #ul( /5, /01/, petitioners >uin%ona and Martin a%reed to divide saidindebtedness eJuall(, each one assu)in% an indebtedness of P661,?25.2/ and-SC 5,?22.22 in favor of private respondent David 3:nne9 D , p. 4?, rec.B. >uin%onae9ecuted a ne& pro)issor( note for his one@half share of the assu)ed indebtedness &hich&as secured b( second )ort%a%es of t&o parcels of land 3:nne9 , Petition, pp. 46@40,rec.B &ith stipulation that the )ort%a%e of one parcel should be cancelled upon pa()entof / 4 of his one@half share in their obli%ation to David. The other half of theindebtedness assu)ed b( petitioner Martin &as secured b( a 0 / 4 "arat dia)ond rin%&ith a net value of P?/2,222.22.chanrobles la& librar( < red

On Septe)ber /?, /01/, >uin%ona paid P422,222.22 to David &ho received the sa)e.=hen he tendered on October /?, /01/ and on October 4/, /01/ another P 22,222.22,respondent David refused to accept, co)pellin% petitioner >uin%ona to file $ivil $ase

No. G@ 16? in the $7I of Gue'on $it( on Nove)ber /0, /01/ 3T. >uin%ona #r. v.$le)ent DavidB for specific perfor)ance &ith da)a%es, pra(in% a)on% others, for therelease of the )ort%a%e over one of the t&o parcels of land conve(ed to privaterespondent David as stipulated in the deed of second )ort%a%e.

In said $ivil $ase No. G@ 16? before the Gue'on $it( RT$, private respondent Davidfiled on Dece)ber /0, /01/ an ans&er to the co)plaint for da)a%es &ith counter@clai)for the re)ainin% balance of petitioner >uin%ona s indebtedness in the a)ount ofP6 1,60/. 6 and -SCA0, 42.A? plus interests, da)a%es, and attorne( s feesB pp. /2A@/2?,rec.B.


42/68


43/68

A. That I, therefore, &ithdra& )( clai) &ith the $entral *an" onl( insofar as Mr.Teofisto >uin%ona #r. is concerned to the e9tent of the Pro)issor( Note and theMort%a%es in the a)ounts indicated in the Pro)issor( Note, and underta"e to desist fro)an( prosecution a%ainst hi). This is &ithout pre;udice to the balance of )( clai) a%ainst

Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation, Inc. and its other officers and e)plo(eesE

?. That I e9ecute this affidavit not onl( for )(self but also in behalf of )( sister, DeniseLuhne. crala& virtua/a& librar(

IV

:s =e stated in the decision sou%ht to be reconsidered, the invest)ents or privaterespondent David in the NS : b( &a( of ti)e deposits and savin%s deposits are loansunder the e9press provisions of :rticles 4A1, /0 , /0? and /012 of the Ne& $ivil $ode

and decisions on the )atter.Thus, in the case of Serrano v. $* 306 S$R: 06, /24 +7eb. /A, /012 B, Mr. #usticeHer)o%enes $oncepcion #r., spea"in% for the Second Division, and concurred in b(#ustices *arredo, :ntonio, :Juino and :bad Santos, stated


44/68

V

In his )otion for reconsideration, private respondent contends that the )one(, a)ountin%

to P/,/A?,?A6.42E P/ ,? /.0 and -SC5?,222.22, to be deposited as ti)e and savin%sdeposit &ith the Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation, &as delivered to petitioners hereinin their personal capacit(, &ho in turn had the obli%ation to deliver the sa)e to the ban".Since the( did not deliver or deposit the )one( &ith the Nation Savin%s and oan:ssociation, the( beca)e liable for estafa b( )isappropriation as the $entral *an"discovered that onl( P 2?,14/.04 &ere entered in the records of the ban", and that

petitioners assu)ption of the obli%ation of the ban" to private respondent &as anad)ission that the( did not deliver the )one( to the ban".

*ut as pointed out b( petitioners herein, this constitutes a co)plete chan%e of privaterespondents ori%inal theor( in the $it( 7iscals Office as sho&n b( his affidavit@

co)plaint on Dece)ber 4 , /01/, &herein he stated that fro) March 42, /050 to March,/01/, he, to%ether &ith his sister, Denise Luhne, invested &ith the Nation Savin%s andoan :ssociation the su) of P/,/A?,?A6.42 on ti)e deposits and the su) of P/ ,? /.0Aon savin%s account deposits or a total of P/,/?0,251./A 3pp. /?@/6, rec.B. He li"e&ise)ade invest)ents in the aforesaid ban" in the a)ount of -SC5?,222.22 3p. /5, rec.B. Hefurther stated that &hen the ban" &as placed under receivership b( the $entral *an", hefiled his clai) for all of his invest)ents and later received a report fro) the $entral *an"that onl( P 2?,14/.04 of his invest)ents &ith the ban" &ere entered in its records. So, hefiled a co)plaint for estafa and violation of Section of $entral *an" $ircular No. 6Aand related $entral *an" re%ulations re%ardin% forei%n e9chan%e transactions a%ainst the

Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation and the entire board of directors includin% the

petitioners herein.chanrobles.co)


45/68

4. The pro)issor( notes e9ecuted b( petitioners >uin%ona and Martin &herein the(assu)ed the obli%ation of the Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation to private respondent,upon the latter s reJuest, stated that the sa)e &ere e9ecuted as a result of deposits )ade

b( $le)ent David and Denise Luhne &ith the Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation 3pp.4?, 12, rec.B.

. Private respondent testified under oath before the :ssistant $it( 7iscal of Manila thathe )ade the deposits in the principal office of the Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociationdurin% office hours, before authori'ed officers of the ban", and properl( receipted for in

ban" for)s 3pp. 05@ 01, rec.B.

A. In his verified ans&er to the co)plaint of petitioner >uin%ona in $ivil $ase G@ 16?for specific perfor)ance &ith da)a%es, private respondent ad)itted that he &as adepositor of the Nation Savin%s and oan :ssociation 3p. /2/, rec.B.chanroblesvirtuala&librar( chanrobles.co)


46/68

civil liabilit(. It is i)proper to chan%e theor( on appeal and )ore so in a )otion forreconsideration. It &ould be unfair and un;ust to the other part( liti%ant as it violates

petitioners constitutional ri%ht to due process. It could also undul( prolon% liti%ations because a part( can al&a(s chan%e postures to suit his o&n advanta%e.chanrobles virtualla&librar(

Thus, in People v. :rchilla 3/ S$R: 601, 52/ +/06/ , citin% several casesB, this $ourtsaid


47/68

To deprive petitioners herein of the fore%oin% defenses that

3/B failure to file a )otion for reconsideration of a decision inevitabl( renders such

decision final and e9ecutor(Echanrobles la& librar( < red

34B a co)pro)ise e9ecuted before the institution of the cri)inal action in court precludesthe filin% of such cri)inal actionE

3 B the filin% of a civil action, &hich includes interposin% a counterclai) in an ans&er, before the institution in court of a cri)inal action estops or bars the co)plainant fro)intervenin% in the cri)inal actionE

3AB all ban" deposits 8 &hether savin%s, current or ti)e deposits 8 are in the nature ofloans, under &hich the depositor is the creditor of the ban", &hich thereb( beco)es the

debtor of the depositor, and %ives rise onl( to a civil obli%ationE and3?B the e9traordinar( &rits of in;unction are available for the orderl( ad)inistration of

;ustice, to prevent the use of the stron% ar) of the la& in an oppressive and vindictive)anner, to avoid )ultiplicit( of actions and to afford adeJuate protection to constitutionalri%hts 8

&hich defenses &ere alread( e9istin% lon% before the filin% on Dece)ber 4 , /01/ b(respondent David of his affidavit@co)plaint before the $it( 7iscal &ould be a"in to aviolation of petitioners ri%ht a%ainst e9 post facto la&s.

:s held in the /052 case of La( Ville%as La)i 3 ? S$R: A40, A /B citin% the case ofMe"in v. =olfe 34 Phil. 5AB, one of the si9 "inds of e9 post facto la& is that &hichdeprives a person accused of a cri)e of so)e la&ful protection to &hich he has beco)eentitled, such as the protection of a for)er conviction or acJuittal, or a procla)ation ofa)nest(. crala& virtua/a& librar(

The aforecited defenses &ere alread( available to herein petitioners and afford the) le%al protection alread( secured to the) prior to the filin% of the co)plaint &ith the $it( 7iscal 8 even before an( cri)inal infor)ation has been filed in court.

:dditionall(, the co)pro)ise and affidavit of desistance have the effect of an a)nest( 8co)plete absolution fro) an( cri)inal liabilit(.

Decisions of the Supre)e $ourt are part of the la& of the land. :rticle 1 of the Ne& $ivil$ode of /0?2 directs that ;udicial decisions appl(in% or interpretin% the la&s or the$onstitution shall for) part of the le%al s(ste) of the Philippines 3People v. icera, 6?S$R: 452 +/05? B.

#udicial decisions of the Supre)e $ourt assu)e the sa)e authorit( as the statute itself


48/68

3$alte9 v. Palo)ar, /1 S$R: 4A5E /4A Phil. 56 B.

$onseJuentl(, an( )odification or revocation of the previous doctrines aforeJuotedcannot be %iven retroactive effect in the instant cri)inal prosecution.chanrobles virtualla&librar(

Insistence on the cri)inal prosecution of herein petitioners, &ho alread( acJuired vestedri%ht in the aforesaid defenses a%ainst such prosecution, &ould therefore be clearl( e9

post facto.

To continue &ith the prosecution of herein petitioners, in spite of the fore%oin% le%alconstitutional defenses, &ould subvert the orderl( ad)inistration of ;ustice, den( the)their constitutional ri%hts, e9pose the petitioners to undue and oppressive harass)ent anda%%ravate their an%uish and e9penses, in )uch the sa)e &a( that such unnecessar(

prosecution e9poses the State to useless and e9pensive trials 3Trocio v. Manta, //1 S$R:4A/ +/014 E Hashi) v. *oncan, 5/ Phil. 4/6 +/0A/ E see also Mercado v. $ourt, etc., //6

S$R: 0 +/014 B.VII

There is no need of prior e9haustion of ad)inistrative re)ediesE because the instant caseis an e9ception to the principle of e9haustion as onl( constitutional and le%al Juestionsare involved herein 3 i)oico v. *oard, etc., @A24AA, Oct. /, /01A, per #usticeMelencio@HerreraE Del Mar v. PV:, ?/ S$R: A2 +/05 E Teo9on v. Me)bers, etc., S$R: ?1? +/052 E *e%osa v. $hair)an, etc., 4 S$R: A66 +/052 E >on'ales v.

Hechanova, 0 S$R: 4 2 +/06 E Tapales v. President, etc., t :l., @/5?4 , March 2,/06 , 5 S$R: ?? E Pascual v. Provincial *oard, etc., @//0?0, Oct. /, /0?0, /26 Phil.A66, A52B and because of the ur%enc( of the relief de)anded b( petitioners 3>uerrero v.$arbonell, @5/12, March /?, /0??, unpublishedB.

:ppealin% to the appropriate ad)inistrative authorities concerned fro) the action of the$it( 7iscal then to the Re%ional Trial $ourt and finall( bac" to this Supre)e Tribunal,&ould render the re)ed( inadeJuate and not speed( enou%h to save herein petitionersfro) so )uch harass)ent, an%uish and e9penses or irreparable da)a%e.

9haustion of ad)inistrative re)edies is not reJuired &here the action of thead)inistrative officer is clearl( and obviousl( devoid of an( le%alit( or authorit(3Man%ubat v. Os)e a, @/41 5, :pril 2, /0?0, /2? Phil. / 21@/ 20E Pala)ine v.!a%ado, @602/, March ?, /0?AE Manuel v. de la 7uente, A1 Off. >a'., A140E 7. #ose v.acson, @/2A55, Ma( /5, /0?5E 7esti;o v. Mun. Ma(or of Nabua, ?/ Off. >a'. /4/E$ovacha v. :)ante, @1 ?1, Ma( 4?, /0?6E $ar)ona v. :)ante, ?4 Off. >a'. ?/20ESenarillos v. Her)osisi)a, @/2664, Dece)ber /A, /0?6E and *riones v. Os)e a, #r., @/4? 6, Sept. 4A, /0?1B, or &here the challen%ed action &ill create irreparable da)a%e 3Deara, t. :l. v. $loribel, t :l., @4/6? , Ma( /, /06?, /A S$R: 460, 454@45 B.


49/68

Hence, the )otion for reconsideration of private respondent should be denied.chanroblesvirtual la&librar(


Manila

S $OND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-+&011 F ?(u"(5 1/, 198&

MANUEL M. SERRANO, petitioner,vs.

CENTRAL BANK OF THE PH L PP NES@ O ERSEAS BANK OF MAN LA@EMER TO M. RAMOS, SUSANA B. RAMOS, EMER TO B. RAMOS, R.,OSEFA RAMOS !ELA RAMA, HORAC O !ELA RAMA, ANTON O B.RAMOS, F LOMENA RAMOS LE!ESMA, RO!OLFO LE!ESMA, CTOR ARAMOS TAN UATCO, "#$ TEOF LO TAN UATCO, respondents.

Rene -iokno for petitioner.

7. . van%elista >lecerio T. Orsolino for respondent $entral *an" of the Philippines.

7eliciano $. Tu)ale, Pacifico T. Torres and :ntonio *. PeriJuet for respondent Overseas

*an" of Manila.

#osefina >. Salon%a for all other respondents.

$ON$ P$ION, #R., J.:

Petition for !anda!#s and prohibition, &ith preli)inar( in;unction, that see"s theestablish)ent of ;oint and solidar( liabilit( to the a)ount of Three Hundred 7ift(Thousand Pesos, &ith interest, a%ainst respondent $entral *an" of the Philippines and

Overseas *an" of Manila and its stoc"holders, on the alle%ed failure of the Overseas*an" of Manila to return the ti)e deposits )ade b( petitioner and assi%ned to hi), on the%round that respondent $entral *an" failed in its dut( to e9ercise strict supervision overrespondent Overseas *an" of Manila to protect depositors and the %eneral public. 1

Petitioner also pra(s that both respondent ban"s be ordered to e9ecute the proper andnecessar( docu)ents to constitute all properties fisted in :nne9 5 of the :ns&er ofrespondent $entral *an" of the Philippines in >.R. No. @40 ?4, entitled FA!erita /.

Ra!os, et al (s. %entral ank of the Philippines,F into a trust fund in favor of petitioner


50/68

and all other depositors of respondent Overseas *an" of Manila. It is also pra(ed that therespondents be prohibited per)anentl( fro) honorin%, i)ple)entin%, or doin% an( act

predicated upon the validit( or efficac( of the deeds of )ort%a%e, assi%n)ent. and orconve(ance or transfer of &hatever nature of the properties listed in :nne9 5 of the:ns&er of respondent $entral *an" in >.R. No. 40 ?4. 2

: sou%ht for e9@parte preli)inar( in;unction a%ainst both respondent ban"s &as not %iven b( this $ourt.

-ndisputed pertinent facts are.R. $V No. 4?5 0 &hich )odified the Decisionof /? Nove)ber /002 of *ranch /0 of the Re%ional Trial $ourt 3RT$B of Manila in $ivil$ase No. 15@A4065, entitled ank of the Philippine Islands s#ccessor9in9interest of%o!!ercial ank and Tr#st %o!pany; (ers#s Aastern Plywood %orporation and

enigno -. Li! . The $ourt of :ppeals had affir)ed the dis)issal of the co)plaint buthad %ranted the defendantsF counterclai) for P /,46/.AA &hich represents theoutstandin% balance of their account &ith the plaintiff.

:s culled fro) the records and the pleadin%s of the parties, the follo&in% facts &ere dul(established.R. $V No. 4?5 0.

On 4 #anuar( /00/, the $ourt of :ppeals rendered a decision affir)in% the decision ofthe trial court. It, ho&ever, failed to rule on the defendantsF 3private respondentsFB partialappeal fro) the trial courtFs denial of their counterclai). -pon their )otion forreconsideration, the $ourt of :ppeals pro)ul%ated on 6 March /004 an :)endedDecision 1+ &herein it ruled that the settle)ent of VelascoFs estate had nothin% to do &iththe clai) of the defendants for the return of the balance of their account &ith $*T$ *PIas the( &ere not priv( to that case, and that the defendants, as depositors of $*T$ *PI,are the latterFs creditorsE hence, $*T$ *PI should have protected the defendantsF interestin Sp. Proc. No. 10?0 &hen the said account &as clai)ed b( VelascoFs estate. It thenordered *PI to pa( defendants the a)ount of P /,46/.AA representin% the outstandin%

balance in the ban" account of defendants. 1/

On 44 :pril /004, *PI filed the instant petition alle%in% therein that the Holdout:%ree)ent in Juestion &as sub;ect to a suspensive condition stated therein, (i+ ., that theP /,46/.AA shall beco)e a securit( for respondent i)Fs pro)issor( note onl( if

respondentsF i) and astern Pl(&ood $orporationFs interests to that a)ount areestablished as a result of a final and definitive ;udicial action or a settle)ent bet&een anda)on% the contestin% parties thereto. 10 Hence, *PI asserts, the $ourt of :ppeals erred inaffir)in% the trial courtFs decision dis)issin% the co)plaint on the %round that it &as thedut( of $*T$ to debit the account of the defendants to set off the a)ount of P5 ,222.22covered b( the pro)issor( note.

Private respondents astern and i) dispute the suspensive condition ar%u)ent of the petitioner. The( interpret the findin%s of both the trial and appellate courts that the )one(deposited in the ;oint account of Velasco and i) ca)e fro) astern and i)Fs o&naccount as a findin% that the )one( deposited in the ;oint account of i) and Velascori%htfull( belon%+ed to astern Pl(&ood $orporation and or *eni%no i). :nd

because the latter are the ri%htful o&ners of the )one( in Juestion, the suspensive


58/68


59/68

&as then in order and it &as error for the trial court to dis)iss it on the theor( that it &asset off b( an eJuivalent portion in $ : No. 4 /2@22/@A4 &hich *PI should have debited.The $ourt of :ppeals also erred in affir)in% such dis)issal.

The suspensive condition theor( of the petitioner is, therefore, untenable.

The $ourt of :ppeals correctl( decided on the counterclai). The counterclai) of asternand i) for the return of the P /,46/.AA 2& &as eJuivalent to a de)and that the( beallo&ed to &ithdra& their deposit &ith the ban". :rticle /012 of the $ivil $ode e9pressl(

provides that +f i9ed, savin%s, and current deposits of )one( in ban"s and si)ilarinstitutions shall be %overned b( the provisions concernin% si)ple loan. In 7errano (s.%entral ank of the Philippines , 21 &e held that ban" deposits are in the nature ofirre%ular depositsE the( are reall( loans because the( earn interest. The relationship then

bet&een a depositor and a ban" is one of creditor and debtor. The deposit under theJuestioned account &as an ordinar( ban" depositE hence, it &as pa(able on de)and of thedepositor. 22

The account &as proved and established to belon% to astern even if it &as deposited inthe na)es of i) and Velasco. :s the real creditor of the ban", astern has the ri%ht to&ithdra& it or to de)and pa()ent thereof. *PI cannot be relieved of its dut( to pa(astern si)pl( because it alread( allo&ed the heirs of Velasco to &ithdra& the &hole

balance of the account. The petitioner should not have allo&ed such &ithdra&al becauseit had ad)itted in the Holdout :%ree)ent the Juestioned o&nership of the )one(deposited in the account. :s earl( as /4 Ma( /050, $*T$ &as notified b( the $orporateSecretar( of astern that the deposit in the ;oint account of Velasco and i) &as bein%

clai)ed b( the) and that one@half &as bein% clai)ed b( the heirs of Velasco. 2+

Moreover, the order of the court in Sp. Proc. No. 10?0 )erel( authori'ed the heirs ofVelasco to &ithdra& the account. *PI &as not specificall( ordered to release the accountto the said heirsE hence, it &as under no ;udicial co)pulsion to do so. The authori'ation%iven to the heirs of Velasco cannot be construed as a final deter)ination or ad;udicationthat the account belon%ed to Velasco. =e have ruled that &hen the o&nership of a

particular propert( is disputed, the deter)ination b( a probate court of &hether that propert( is included in the estate of a deceased is )erel( provisional in character and

cannot be the sub;ect of e9ecution.2/

*ecause the o&nership of the deposit re)ained undeter)ined, *PI, as the debtor &ithrespect thereto, had no ri%ht to pa( to persons other than those in &hose favor theobli%ation &as constituted or &hose ri%ht or authorit( to receive pa()ent is indisputable.The pa()ent of the )one( deposited &ith *PI that &ill e9tin%uish its obli%ation to the


60/68


61/68


62/68

1. The /,0/ cases of $arnation )entioned in para%raph ? hereof &ere ta"en b( the bro"er at Pier / , Shed , so)eti)e in 7ebruar(, /062, &here at the ti)e, there &erestored therein, aside fro) the ship)ent involved herein, /222 cases of $arnationMil" bearin% the sa)e )ar"s and also consi%ned to plaintiff ua Lian but had beendischar%ed fro) SS UST :DVO$:T F and covered b( *ill of adin% No. //E

0. Of the ship)ent of /222 cases of $arnation Mil" &hich also ca)e fro) the$arnation $o)pan(, San 7rancisco, $alifornia, -.S.:. and bearin% the sa)e )ar"sas the ship)ent herein but had been dischar%ed fro) S S ST :DVO$:T andcovered b( *ill of adin% No. //, ua Lian as consi%nee thereof filed a clai) forshort@deliver( a%ainst defendant Manila Port Service, and said defendant Manila PortService paid ua Lian plaintiff herein, P5?2.22 in settle)ent of its clai)E

/2. The( reserve the ri%ht to sub)it docu)entar( evidenceE

//. The( sub)it the )atter of attorne(Fs fees and costs to the sound discretion of the

$ourt.

On these facts and docu)entar( evidence subseJuentl( presented, the $ourt of 7irstInstance of Manila ruled that /,140 cases )ar"ed ua Lian 3/5/ cases less than the 4,222cases indicated in the bill of ladin% and ,/5/ cases )ar"ed $ebu -nited 3/5/ caseso(er the ,222 cases in the bill of ladin% &ere dischar%ed to the Manila Port Service.$onsiderin% that ua Lian and $ebu -nited nterprises &ere the onl( consi%nees of theship)ent of ?,222 cases of $arnation )il", it found that of the ,/5/ cases )ar"ed$ebu -nited , /5/ should have been delivered to ua Lian. Inas)uch as the defendantManila Port Service actuall( delivered /,0/ cases to plaintiff, / &hich is onl( 15 casesshort of 4,222 cases as per bill of ladin% the for)er &as ordered to pa( ua Lian the su)

of P/,/1 .// representin% such shorta%e of 15 cases, &ith le%al interest fro) the date ofthe suit, plus P?22 as attorne(Fs fees.

Defendants appealed to -s and contend that the( should not be )ade to ans&er for theundelivered cases of )il", insistin% that Manila Port Service &as bound to deliver onl(/,140 cases to ua Lian and that it had there before in fact over@delivered to the latter.

The bill of ladin% in favor of $ebu -nited nterprises indicated that onl( ,222 cases&ere due to said consi%nee, althou%h ,/5/ cases &ere )ar"ed in its favor. :ccordin%l(,the e9cess /5/ cases )ar"ed $ebu -nited placed the defendant arrastre operator in adile))a, for should it deliver the) to ua Lian the %oods could be clai)ed b( the

consi%nee $ebu -nited nterprises &hose )ar"in%s the( bore, and should it deliveraccordin% to )ar"in%s, to $ebu -nited nterprises, it )i%ht be sued b( the consi%nee,ua Lian &hose bill of ladin% indicated that it should receive /5/ cases )ore. The

dile))a itself, ho&ever, offered the solution. The le%al relationship bet&een an arrastreoperator and the consi%nee is a"in to that of a depositor and &arehouse)an. 4 :scustodian of the %oods dischar%ed fro) the vessel, it &as defendant arrastre operatorFsdut(, li"e that of an( ordinar( depositar(, to ta"e %ood care of the %oods and to turn the)over to the part( entitled to their possession. -nder this particular set of circu)stances,


63/68

said defendant should have &ithheld deliver( because of the discrepanc( bet&een the billof ladin% and the )ar"in%s and conducted its o&n investi%ation, not unli"e that underSection /1 of the =arehouse Receipts a&, or called upon the parties, to interplead, suchas in a case under Section /5 of the sa)e la&, in order to deter)ine the ri%htful o&ner ofthe %oods.

It is true that Section /4 of the Mana%e)ent $ontract e9e)pts the arrastre operator fro)responsibilit( for )isdeliver( or non@deliver( due to i)proper or insufficient )ar"in%.=e cannot ho&ever e9cuse the aforestated defendant fro) liabilit( in this case before -sno& because the bill of ladin% sho&ed that onl( ,222 cases &ere consi%ned to $ebu-nited nterprises. The fact that the e9cess of /5/ cases &ere )ar"ed for $ebu -nitednterprises and that the consi%n)ent to ua Lian &as /5/ cases less than the 4,222 in the

bill of ladin%, should have been sufficient reason for the defendant Manila Port Service to&ithhold the %oods pendin% deter)ination of their ri%htful o&nership.

=e therefore find the defendants liable, &ithout pre;udice to their ta"in% &hatever proper

le%al steps the( )a( consider &orth&hile to recover the e9cess delivered to $ebu -nitednterprises.

=ith respect to the attorne(Fs fees a&arded belo&, this $ourt notices that the sa)e isabout ?2 per cent of the liti%ated a)ount of P/,/1 .//. =e therefore dee) it reasonable todecrease the attorne(Fs fees to P 22.22.

=herefore, &ith the aforesaid reservation, and &ith the )odification that the attorne(Fsfee is reduced to P 22.22, the ;ud%)ent appealed fro) is affir)ed, &ith costs a%ainstappellants. So ordered.

%oncepcion, %.J., Reyes, J. .L., -i+on, Regala, /akalintal, 0aldi(ar, 7anche+ and%astro, JJ., conc#r.


Manila

7IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. '+2'1 M"5 29, 198'

SPOUSES T RSO . NTOLA "#$ LORETO ! NTOLA, defendants@appellants,vs.NSULAR BANK OF AS A AN! AMER CA, plaintiff@appellee.

MELENC O-HERRERA, J.:


64/68

This case &as appealed to the Inter)ediate :ppellate $ourt &hich, ho&ever, certified thesa)e to this $ourt, the issue involved bein% purel( le%al.

The facts are not disputed.

On :u%ust 42, /05? the spouses Tirso and oreta Vintola 3the VINTO :S, for shortB,doin% business under the na)e and st(le Da9 Lin International, en%a%ed in the)anufacture of ra& sea shells into finished products, applied for and &ere %ranted ado)estic letter of credit b( the Insular *an" of :sia and :)erica 3I*::B, $ebu $it(. 1 inthe a)ount of PA2,222.22. The etter of $redit authori'ed the ban" to ne%otiate for theiraccount drafts dra&n b( their supplier, one Stalin Tan, on Da9 Lin International for the

purchase of pu"a and olive seashells. In consideration thereof, the VINTO :S, ;ointl(and severall(, a%reed to pa( the ban" at )aturit(, in Philippine currenc(, the eJuivalent,of the afore)entioned a)ount or such portion thereof as )a( be dra&n or paid, upon thefaith of the said credit to%ether &ith the usual char%es.

On the sa)e da(, :u%ust 42, /05?, havin% received fro) Stalin Tan the pu"a and oliveshells &orth PA2,222.22, the VINTO :S e9ecuted a Trust Receipt a%ree)ent &ithI*::, $ebu $it(. -nder that :%ree)ent, the VINTO :S a%reed to hold the %oods intrust for I*:: as the latterFs propert( &ith libert( to sell the sa)e for its account, andin case of sale to turn over the proceeds as soon as received to 3I*::B the due dateindicated in the docu)ent &as October /0, /05?.

Havin% defaulted on their obli%ation, I*:: de)anded pa()ent fro) the VINTO :S ina letter dated #anuar( /, /056. The VINTO :S, &ho &ere unable to dispose of the shells,responded b( offerin% to return the %oods. I*:: refused to accept the )erchandise, anddue to the continued refusal of the VINTO :S to )a"e %ood their underta"in%, I*::

char%ed the) &ith stafa for havin% )isappropriated, )isapplied and converted for theiro&n personal use and benefit the aforesaid %oods. Durin% the trial of the cri)inal case theVINTO :S turned over the seashells to the custod( of the Trial $ourt.

On :pril /4, /014, the then $ourt of 7irst Instance of $ebu, *ranch VII, acJuitted theVINTO :S of the cri)e char%ed, after findin% that the ele)ent of )isappropriation orconversion &as ine9istent. $oncluded the $ourt

CREDIT CASES (deposit).doc

Documents

Transcript of CREDIT CASES (deposit).doc