Western Institute of Technology Vs Salas
Western Institute of Technology Vs Salas
WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS SALAS he is suing on a derivative cause of action on behalf of the corporation and all other
shareholders similarly situated who wish to join.—A derivative suit is an action
G.R. No. 113032. August 21, 1997.* brought by minority shareholders in the name of the corporation to redress wrongs
WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC., HOMERO L. VILLASIS, committed against it, for which the directors refuse to sue. It is a remedy designed
DIMAS ENRIQUEZ, PRESTON F. VILLASIS & REGINALD F. VILLASIS, by equity and has been the principal defense of the minority shareholders against
petitioners, vs. RICARDO T. SALAS, SALVADOR T. SALAS, SOLEDAD SALAS- abuses by the majority. Here, however, the case is not a derivative suit but is
TUBILLEJA, ANTONIO S. SALAS, RICHARD S. SALAS & HON. JUDGE merely an appeal on the civil aspect of Criminal Cases Nos. 37097 and 37098 filed
PORFIRIO PARIAN, respondents. with the RTC of Iloilo for estafa and falsification of public document. Among the
Corporation Law; Two ways by which members of the board can be granted basic requirements for a derivative suit to prosper is that the minority shareholder
compensation apart from reasonable per diems.—There is no argument that who is suing for and on behalf of the corporation must allege in his complaint before
directors or trustees, as the case may be, are not entitled to salary or other the proper forum that he is suing on a derivative cause of action on behalf of the
compensation when they perform nothing more than the usual and ordinary duties corporation and all other shareholders similarly situated who wish to join. This is
of their office. This rule is founded upon a presumption that directors/trustees necessary to vest jurisdiction upon the tribunal in line with the rule that it is the
render service gratuitously, and that the return upon their shares adequately allegations in the complaint that vests jurisdiction upon the court or quasi-judicial
furnishes the motives for service, without compensation. Under the foregoing body concerned over the subject matter and nature of the action. This was not
section, there are only two (2) ways by which members of the board can be granted complied with by the petitioners either in their complaint before the court a quo nor
compensation apart from reasonable per diems: (1) when there is a provision in the in the instant petition which, in part, merely states that “this is a petition for
by-laws fixing their compensation; and (2) when the stockholders representing a review on certiorari on pure questions of law to set aside a portion of the RTC
majority of the outstanding capital stock at a regular or special stockholders’ decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 37097 and 37098” since the trial court’s judgment
meeting agree to give it to them. of acquittal failed to impose any civil liability against the private respondents. By
Same; Members of the board may receive compensation, in addition to no amount of equity considerations, if at all deserved, can a mere appeal on the
reasonable per diems, when they render services to the corporation in a capacity civil aspect of a criminal case be treated as a derivative suit.
other than as directors/trustees.—This proscription, however, against granting Criminal Law; Civil Liability; Acquittal in a criminal action bars the civil
compensation to directors/trustees of a corporation is not a sweeping rule. Worthy action arising therefrom where the judgment of acquittal holds that the accused did
of note is the clear phraseology of Section 30 which states: “x x x [T]he directors not commit the criminal acts imputed to them.—The acquittal in Criminal Cases
shall not receive any compensation, as such directors, x x x.” The phrase as such Nos. 37097 and 37098 is not merely based on reasonable doubt but rather on a
directors is not without significance for it delimits the scope of the prohibition to finding that the accused-private respondents did not commit the criminal acts
compensation given to them for services performed purely in their capacity as complained of. Thus, pursuant to the above rule and settled juris-
directors or trustees. The unambiguous implication is that members of the board 218
may receive compensation, in addition to reasonable per diems, when they render
services to the corporation in a capacity other than as directors/trustees. In the case 218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
at bench, Resolution No. 48, s. 1986 granted monthly compensation to private Western Institute of Technology, Inc. vs. Salas
respondents not in prudence, any civil action ex delicto cannot prosper. Acquittal in a criminal
action bars the civil action arising therefrom where the judgment of acquittal holds
_________________ that the accused did not commit the criminal acts imputed to them.
*FIRST DIVISION. PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
217
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 217 The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Quisumbing, Torres & Evangelista for Western Institute of Technology.
Western Institute of Technology vs. Salas
Tranquilino R. Gale for petitioners.
their capacity as members of the board, but rather as officers of the Teodulfo L.C. Castro for private respondents.
corporation, more particularly as Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer and
Secretary of Western Institute of Technology.
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
Same; Remedial Law; Action; Meaning of Derivative Suit; For a derivative
suit to prosper, it is required that the minority shareholder who is suing for and on
Up for review on certiorari are: (1) the Decision dated September 6, 1993; and (2)
behalf of the corporation must allege in his complaint before the proper forum that
the Order dated November 23, 1993 of Branch 33 of the Regional Trial Court of
Page 1 of 6
Iloilo City in Criminal Cases Nos. 37097 and 37098 for estafa and falsification of a _____________
public document, respectively. The judgment acquitted the private respondents of
both charges, but petitioners seek to hold them civilly liable. 1Annex “E”; Rollo, p. 92.
Private respondents Ricardo T. Salas, Salvador T. Salas, Soledad Salas- 2Annex “F”; Rollo, p. 93.
Tubilleja, Antonio S. Salas, and Richard S. Salas, belonging to the same family, are 220
the majority and controlling members of the Board of Trustees of Western In-
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
stitute of Technology, Inc. (WIT, for short), a stock corporation engaged in the
operation, among others, of an educational institution. According to petitioners, the Western Institute of Technology, Inc. vs. Salas
minority stockholders of WIT, sometime on June 1, 1986 in the principal office of the Revised Penal Code and the other for estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the
WIT at La Paz, Iloilo City, a Special Board Meeting was held. In attendance were RPC, were filed before Branch 33 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. The
other members of the Board including one of the petitioners Reginald Villasis. Prior charge for falsification of public document was anchored on the private
to aforesaid Special Board Meeting, copies of notice thereof, dated May 24, 1986, respondents’ submission of WIT’s income statement for the fiscal year 1985-1986
were distributed to all Board Members. The notice allegedly indicated that the with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reflecting therein the
meeting to be held on June 1, 1986 included Item No. 6 which states: disbursement of corporate funds for the compensation of private respondents based
219 on Resolution No. 4, series of 1986, making it appear that the same was passed by
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 219 the board on March 30, 1986, when in truth, the same was actually passed on June
1, 1986, a date not covered by the corporation’s fiscal year 1985-1986 (beginning
Western Institute of Technology vs. Salas May 1, 1985 and ending April 30, 1986). The Information for falsification of a public
“Possible implementation of Art. III, Sec. 6 of the Amended ByLaws of Western document states:
Institute of Technology, Inc. on compensation of all officers of the corporation.”1 “The undersigned City Prosecutor accuses RICARDO T. SALAS, SALVADOR T.
In said meeting, the Board of Trustees passed Resolution No. 48, s. 1986, granting SALAS, SOLEDAD SALAS-TUBILLEJA, ANTONIO S. SALAS and RICHARD S.
monthly compensation to the private respondents as corporate officers retroactive SALAS (whose dates and places of birth cannot be ascertained) of the crime of
June 1, 1985, viz.: FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code,
committed as follows:
“Resolution No. 48 s. 1986 That on or about the 10th day of June, 1986, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
On the motion of Mr. Richard Salas (accused), duly seconded by Mrs. Soledad then the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary, and Trustee (who later
Tubilleja (accused), it was unanimously resolved that: became Secretary), respectively, of the board of trustees of the Western Institute of
‘The Officers of the Corporation be granted monthly compensation for services Technology, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
rendered as follows: Chairman—P9,000.00/month, Vice Chairman— Republic of the Philippines, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
P3,500.00/month, Corporate Treasurer—P3,500.00/month and Corporate helping one another, to better realized (sic) their purpose, did then and there
Secretary—P3,500.00/month, retroactive June 1, 1985 and the ten percen-tum of wilfully, unlawfully and criminally prepare and execute and subsequently cause to
the net profits shall be distributed equally among the ten members of the Board of be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission an income statement of
Trustees. This shall amend and superceed(sic) any previous resolution.’ the corporation for the fiscal year 1985-1986, the same being required to be
There were no other business. submitted every end of the corporation fiscal year by the aforesaid Commission,
The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 5:11 P.M. and therefore, a public document, including therein the disbursement of the
This is to certify that the foregoing minutes of the regular meeting of the Board retroactive compensation of accused corporate officers in the amount of
of Trustees of Western Institute of Technology, Inc. held on March 30, 1986 is true P186,470.70, by then and there making it appear that the basis thereof Resolution
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. No. 4, Series of 1986 was passed by the board of trustees on March 30, 1986, a date
(Sgd) ANTONIO S. SALAS covered by the cor
Corporate Secretary”2 221
A few years later, that is, on March 13, 1991, petitioners Homero Villasis, Preston VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 221
Villasis, Reginald Villasis and Dimas Enriquez filed an affidavit-complaint against
private respondents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iloilo, as a result of Western Institute of Technology vs. Salas
which two (2) separate criminal informations, one for falsification of a public poration’s fiscal year 1985-1986 (i.e., from May 1, 1985 to April 30, 1986), when in
document under Article 171 of truth and in fact, as said accused well knew, no such Resolution No. 48, Series of
1986 was passed on March 30, 1986.
Page 2 of 6
CONTRARY TO LAW. authority whatsoever to represent the corporation in filing the petition. Intervenor
Iloilo City, Philippines, November 22, 1991.”3 [Italics ours]. likewise prayed for the dismissal of the petition for being utterly without merit.
The Information, on the other hand, for estafa reads: The Motion for Intervention was granted on January 16, 1995.8
“The undersigned City Prosecutor accuses RICARDO SALAS, SALVADOR T. Petitioners would like us to hold private respondents civilly liable despite their
SALAS, SOLEDAD SALAS-TUBILLEJA, ANTONIO S. SALAS, RICHARD S. acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. 37097 and 37098. They base their claim on the
SALAS (whose dates and places of birth cannot be ascertained) of the crime of alleged illegal issuance by private respondents of Resolution No. 48, series of 1986
ESTAFA, Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows: ordering the disbursement of corporate funds in the amount of P186,470.70
That on or about the 1st day of June, 1986, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines, and representing retroactive compensation as of June 1, 1985 in favor of private
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being respondents, board members of WIT, plus P1,453,970.79 for the subsequent
then the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary, and Trustee (who later collective salaries of private respondents every 15th and 30th of
became Secretary), respectively, of the Board of Trustees of Western Institute of
Technology, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the ________________
Republic of the Philippines, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another to better realize their purpose, did then and there wilfully, 4 Annex “U”; Rollo, p. 233.
unlawfully and feloniously defraud the said corporation (and its stockholders) in 5 Decision, p. 11; Rollo, p. 64.
the following manner, to wit: herein accused, knowing fully well that they have no 6 Annex “B”; Rollo, p. 66.
sufficient, lawful authority to disburse—let alone violate applicable laws and 7 Rollo, p. 87.
jurisprudence, disbursed the funds of the corporation by effecting payment of their 8 Rollo, p. 403.
retroactive salaries in the amount of P186,470.00 and subsequently paying 223
themselves every 15th and 30th of the month starting June 15, 1986 until the
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 223
present, in the amount of P19,500.00 per month, as if the same were their own, and
when herein accused were informed of the illegality of these disbursements by the Western Institute of Technology vs. Salas
minority stockholders by way of objections made in an annual stockholders’ the month until the filing of the criminal complaints against them on March 1991.
meeting held on June 14, 1986 and every year thereafter, they refused, and still Petitioners maintain that this grant of compensation to private respondents is
refuse, to rectify the same to the damage and prejudice of the corporation (and its proscribed under Section 30 of the Corporation Code. Thus, private respondents
stockholders) in the total sum of P1,453,970.79 as of November 15, 1991. are obliged to return these amounts to the corporation with interest.
We cannot sustain the petitioners. The pertinent section of the Corporation
_______________ Code provides:
“Sec. 30. Compensation of directors.—In the absence of any provision in the by-laws
3Annex “V”; Rollo, p. 237. fixing their compensation, the directors shall not receive any compensation, as such
222 directors, except for reasonable per diems: Provided, however, That any such
compensation (other than per diems) may be granted to directors by the vote of the
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
stockholders representing at least a majority of the outstanding capital stock at a
Western Institute of Technology, Inc. vs. Salas regular or special stockholders’ meeting. In no case shall the total yearly
CONTRARY TO LAW. compensation of directors, as such directors, exceed ten (10%) percent of the net
Iloilo City, Philippines, November 22, 1991.”4 [Italics ours] income before income tax of the corporation during the preceding year.” [Italics
Thereafter, trial for the two criminal cases, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 37097 ours]
and 37098, was consolidated. After a full-blown hearing, Judge Porfirio Parian There is no argument that directors or trustees, as the case may be, are not entitled
handed down a verdict of acquittal on both counts5 dated September 6, 1993 to salary or other compensation when they perform nothing more than the usual
without imposing any civil liability against the accused therein. and ordinary duties of their office. This rule is founded upon a presumption that
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration6 of the civil aspect of the RTC directors/trustees render service gratuitously, and that the return upon their
Decision which was, however, denied in an Order dated November 23, 1993. 7 shares adequately furnishes the motives for service, without compensation. 9 Under
Hence, the instant petition. the foregoing section, there are only two (2) ways by which members of the board
Significantly on December 8, 1994, a Motion for Intervention, dated December can be granted compensation apart from reasonable per diems: (1) when there is a
2, 1994, was filed before this Court by Western Institute of Technology, Inc., provision in the by-laws fixing their compensation; and (2) when the stockholders
supposedly one of the petitioners herein, disowning its inclusion in the petition and representing a majority of the outstanding capital stock at a regular or special
submitting that Atty. Tranquilino R. Gale, counsel for the other petitioners, had no stockholders’ meeting agree to give it to them.
Page 3 of 6
This proscription, however, against granting compensation to 11Annex “F”; Rollo, p. 93.
directors/trustees of a corporation is not a sweeping rule. Worthy of note is the clear 225
phraseology of Section 30 which states: “x x x [T]he directors shall not receive any VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 225
compensa-
Western Institute of Technology vs. Salas
_________________ Clearly, therefore, the prohibition with respect to granting compensation to
corporate directors/trustees as such under Section 30 is not violated in this
9 Agbayani, Aguedo F., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial particular case. Consequently, the last sentence of Section 30 which provides:
Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 3, 1988 ed., p. 259. “x x x x x x. In no case shall the total yearly compensation of directors, as such
directors, exceed ten (10%) percent of the net income before income tax of the
224
corporation during the preceding year.” [Italics ours]
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED does not likewise find application in this case since the compensation is being given
Western Institute of Technology, Inc. vs. Salas to private respondents in their capacity as officers of WIT and not as board
tion, as such directors, x x x.” The phrase as such directorsis not without members.
significance for it delimits the scope of the prohibition to compensation given to Petitioners assert that the instant case is a derivative suit brought by them as
them for services performed purely in their capacity as directors or trustees. The minority shareholders of WIT for and on behalf of the corporation to annul
unambiguous implication is that members of the board may receive compensation, Resolution No. 48, s. 1986 which is prejudicial to the corporation.
in addition to reasonable per diems, when they render services to the corporation We are unpersuaded. A derivative suit is an action brought by minority
in a capacity other than as directors/trustees.10 In the case at bench, Resolution No. shareholders in the name of the corporation to redress wrongs committed against
48, s. 1986 granted monthly compensation to private respondents not in their it, for which the directors refuse to sue.12 It is a remedy designed by equity and has
capacity as members of the board, but rather as officers of the corporation, more been the principal defense of the minority shareholders against abuses by the
particularly as Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary of Western majority.13Here, however, the case is not a derivative suit but is merely an appeal
Institute of Technology. We quote once more Resolution No. 48, s. 1986 for easy on the civil aspect of Criminal Cases Nos. 37097 and 37098 filed with the RTC of
reference, viz.: Iloilo for estafa and falsification of public document. Among the basic requirements
for a derivative suit to prosper is that the minority shareholder who is suing for
“Resolution No. 48 s. 1986 and on behalf of the corporation must allege in his complaint before the proper
forum that he is suing on a derivative cause of action on behalf of the corporation
and all other shareholders similarly situated who wish to join. 14 This is necessary
On the motion of Mr. Richard Salas (accused), duly seconded by Mrs. Soledad
to vest jurisdiction upon the tribunal in line with the rule that it is the allegations
Tubilleja (accused), it was unanimously resolved that:
in the complaint that vests jurisdiction upon the court
‘The Officers of the Corporation be granted monthly compensation for services
rendered as follows: Chairman—P9,000.00/month, Vice Chairman—
P3,500.00/month, Corporate Treasurer—P3,500.00/month and Corporate ___________________
Secretary—P3,500.00/month, retroactive June 1, 1985 and the ten percentum of the
net profits shall be distributed equally among the ten members of the Board of Agbayani, supra., p. 540.
12
Trustees. This shall amend and superceed (sic) any previous resolution.’ Commart (Phils.) Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 198 SCRA 73,
13
Page 4 of 6
private respondents. By no amount of equity considerations, if at all deserved, can the Board of Trustees of the Western Institute of Technology (WIT), Inc. on March
a mere appeal on the civil aspect of a criminal case be treated as a derivative suit. 30, 1986, but on June 1, 1986 special meeting of the same board of trustees.
Granting, for purposes of discussion, that this is a derivative suit as insisted by This Court is reluctant to accept this claim of falsification. The prosecution
petitioners, which it is not, the same is outrightly dismissible for having been omitted to submit the complete minutes of the regular meeting of the Board of
wrongfully filed in the regular court devoid of any jurisdiction to entertain the Trustees on March 30, 1986. It only presented in evidence Exh. ‘C,’ which is page 5
complaint. The case should have been filed with the Securities and Exchange or the last page of the said minutes. Had the complete minutes (Exh. ‘1’) consisting
Commission (SEC) which exercises original and exclusive jurisdiction over of five (5) pages, been submitted, it can be readily seen and understood that
derivative suits, they being intra-corporate disputes, per Section 5(b) of P.D. No. Resolution No. 48, Series of 1986 (Exh. ‘1-E-1’) giving compensation to corporate
902-A: officers, was indeed included in Other Business, No. 6 of the Agenda, and was taken
“In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and up and passed on March 30, 1986. The mere fact of existence of Exh. ‘C’ also proves
Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of that it was passed on March 30, 1986 for Exh. ‘C’ is part and parcel of the whole
associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and minutes of the Board of Trustees Regular Meeting on March 30, 1986. No better and
decrees, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases more
involving:
xxx xxx xxx _________________
b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between
and among stockholders, members, or associates: between any or all of them and 17 Sections 1 & 3, Circular No. 1-91; Sections 1 & 3, Revised Administrative
the corporation,partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members Circular No. 1-95; Now incorporated in Sections 1 & 3, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of
or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or Civil Procedure.
association and the State insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right 18 Section 1, Rule 45.
to exist as such entity; 228
xxx xxx x x x.” [Italics ours]
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
___________________ Western Institute of Technology, Inc. vs. Salas
credible proof can be considered other than the Minutes (Exh. ‘1’) itself of the Regular
15 See Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 108 [1995]; De Leon v. Court Meeting of the Board of Trustees on March 30, 1986. The imputation that said
of Appeals, 245 SCRA 166 [1995]; Alleje v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 495 [1995]. Resolution No. 48 was neither taken up nor passed on March 30, 1986 because the
16 Petition, p. 6; Rollo, p. 13. matter regarding compensation was not specifically stated or written in the Agenda
227 and that the words ‘possible implementation of said Resolution No. 48, was
expressly written in the Agenda for the Special Meeting of the Board on June 1,
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 227
1986, is simply an implication. This evidence by implication to the mind of the court
Western Institute of Technology vs. Salas cannot prevail over the Minutes (Exh. ‘1’) and cannot ripen into proof beyond
Once the case is decided by the SEC, the losing party may file a petition for review reasonable doubt which is demanded in all criminal prosecutions.
before the Court of Appeals raising questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of This Court finds that under the Eleventh Article (Exh. ‘3-D-1’) of the Articles
fact and law.17 It is only after the case has ran this course, and not earlier, can it of Incorporation (Exh. ‘3-B’) of the Panay Educational Institution, Inc., now the
be brought to us via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising only Western Institute of Technology, Inc., the officers of the corporation shall receive
pure questions of law.18 Petitioners, in pleading that we treat the instant petition such compensation as the Board of Directors may provide. These Articles of
as a derivative suit, are trying to short-circuit the entire process which we cannot Incorporation was adopted on May 17, 1957 (Exh. ‘3-E’). The Officers of the
here sanction. corporation and their corresponding duties are enumerated and stated in Sections
As an appeal on the civil aspect of Criminal Cases Nos. 37097 and 37098 for 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Art. III of the Amended By-Laws of the Corporation (Exh. ‘4-A’)
falsification of public document and estafa, which this petition truly is, we have to which was adopted on May 31, 1957. According to Sec. 6, Art. III of the same By-
deny the petition just the same. It will be well to quote the respondent court’s Laws, all officers shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by the Board of
ratiocinations acquitting the private respondents on both counts: Directors.
“The prosecution wants this Court to believe and agree that there is falsification of It is the perception of this Court that the grant of compensation or salary to the
public document because, as claimed by the prosecution, Resolution No. 48, Series accused in their capacity as officers of the corporation, through Resolution No. 48,
of 1986 (Exh. ‘1-E-1’) was not taken up and passed during the Regular Meeting of enacted on March 30, 1986 by the Board of Trustees, is authorized by both the
Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws of the corporation. To state otherwise is
Page 5 of 6
to depart from the clear terms of the said articles and by-laws. In their defense the 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
accused have properly and rightly asserted that the grant of salary is not for
directors, but for their being officers of the corporation who oversee the day to day People vs. Chavez
activities and operations of the school. SO ORDERED.
xxx xxx xxx Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
x x x [O]n the question of whether or not the accused can be held liable for estafa Petition denied.
under Sec. 1(b) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, it is perceived by this Court Note.—Providing gratuity pay for its employees is one of the express powers of
that the receipt and the holding of the money by the accused as salary on basis of the corporation under the Corporation Code. (Lopez Realty Inc. vs. Fontecha, 247
the authority granted by the Articles and By-Laws of the corporation are not SCRA 183 [1995])
tainted with abuse of confidence. The money they received belongs to them and
cannot be said to have been converted and/or misappropriated by them.
229
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 229
Western Institute of Technology vs. Salas
xxx xxx x x x.”19 [Italics ours]
From the foregoing factual findings, which we find to be amply substantiated by
the records, it is evident that there is simply no basis to hold the accused, private
respondents herein, civilly liable. Section 2(b) of Rule 111 on the New Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides:
“SEC. 2. Institution of separate civil action.
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the
civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.”[Italics ours]
Likewise, the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 120 reads:
“SEC. 2. Form and contents of judgment.
xxx xxx xxx
In case of acquittal, unless there is a clear showing that the act from which the
civil liability might arise did not exist, the judgment shall make a finding on the
civil liability of the accused in favor of the offended party.” [Italics ours]
The acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. 37097 and 37098 is not merely based on
reasonable doubt but rather on a finding that the accused-private respondents did
not commit the criminal acts complained of. Thus, pursuant to the above rule and
settled jurisprudence, any civil action ex delicto cannot prosper. Acquittal in a
criminal action bars the civil action arising therefrom where the judgment of
acquittal holds that the accused did not commit the criminal acts imputed to
them.20
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED with costs against
petitioners.
_________________