SECOND DIVISION The City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict petitioner as

charged and filed the corresponding informations before the RTC of

G.R. No. 199481 : December 3, 2012 Manila, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 94-139613 and 94-139614.

ILDEFONSO S. CRISOLOGO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE The RTC Ruling

PHILIPPINES and CHINA BANKING CORPORATION,
Respondents. After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a Decision 11ςrνll dated
December 4, 2002 acquitting petitioner of the criminal charges for
DECISION failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It, however, adjudged him civilly liable to Chinabank, without need
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: for a separate civil action, for the amounts of P1,843,567.90 and
P879,166.81 under L/C Nos. 89/0301 and DOM-33041, respectively,
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1ςrνll under Rule 45 of the
less the payment of P500,000.00 made during the preliminary
Rules of Court assails the November 23, 2011 Decision2ςrνll of the
investigation, with legal interest from the filing of the informations
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 80350, which affirmed
on October 27, 1994 until full payment, and for the costs.
the December 4, 2002 Decision3ςrνll of the Regional Trial Courtt
(RTC); Manila, Branch 21. The RTC Decision acquitted petitioner The CA Ruling
Ildefonso S. Crisologo (petitioner) of the charges for violation of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 115 (Trust Receipts Law) in relation On appeal of the civil aspect, the CA affirmed12ςrνll the RTC
to Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but adjudged Decision holding petitioner civilly liable. It noted that petitioner
him civilly liable under the subject letters of credit. signed the "Guarantee Clause" of the trust receipt agreements in his
personal capacity and even waived the benefit of excussion against
The Factual Antecedents Novachem. As such, he is personally and solidarily liable with
Novachem.
Sometime in January and February 1989, petitioner, as President of
Novachemical Industries, Inc. (Novachem), applied for commercial The Petition
letters of credit from private respondent China Banking Corporation
(Chinabank) to finance the purchase of 1,6004ςrνll kgs. of In the instant petition, petitioner contends that the CA erred in
amoxicillin trihydrate micronized from Hyundai Chemical Company declaring him civilly liable under the subject L/Cs which are
based in Seoul, South Korea and glass containers from San Miguel corporate obligations of Novachem, and that the adjudged amounts
Corporation (SMC). Subsequently, Chinabank issued Letters of were without factual basis because the obligations had already been
Credit Nos. 89/03015ςrνll and DOM-330416ςrνll in the settled. He also questions the unilaterally-imposed interest rates
respective amounts of US$114,400.007ςrνll (originally applied by Chinabank and, accordingly, prays for the application of
US$135,850.00)8ςrνll with a peso equivalent of the stipulated interest rate of 18% per annum (p.a.) on the
P2,139,119.809ςrνll and P1,712,289.90. After petitioner received corporations obligations. He further assails the authority of Ms. De
the goods, he executed for and in behalf of Novachem the Mesa to prosecute the case against him sans authority from
corresponding trust receipt agreements dated May 24, 1989 and Chinabank's Board of Directors.
August 31, 1989 in favor of Chinabank.
The Court's Ruling
On January 28, 2004, Chinabank, through its Staff Assistant, Ms.
Maria Rosario De Mesa (Ms. De Mesa), filed before the City The petition is partly meritorious.
Prosecutor's Office of Manila a Complaint-Affidavit10ςrνll
charging petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 115 in relation to Article Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law explicitly provides that if the

315 1(b) of the RPC for his purported failure to turn-over the goods violation or offense is committed by a corporation, as in this case,

or the proceeds from the sale thereof, despite repeated demands. It the penalty provided for under the law shall be imposed upon the

averred that the latter, with intent to defraud, and with unfaithfulness directors, officers, employees or other officials or person responsible

and abuse of confidence, misapplied, misappropriated and converted for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from

the goods subject of the trust agreements, to its damage and the criminal offense.

prejudice.
In this case, petitioner was acquitted of the charge for violation of

In his defense, petitioner claimed that as a regular client of the Trust Receipts Law in relation to Article 315 1(b) 13ςrνll of the

Chinabank, Novachem was granted a credit line and letters of credit RPC. As such, he is relieved of the corporate criminal liability as

(L/Cs) secured by trust receipt agreements. The subject L/Cs were well as the corresponding civil liability arising therefrom. However,

included in the special term-payment arrangement mutually agreed as correctly found by the RTC and the CA, he may still be held liable

upon by the parties, and payable in installments. In the payment of for the trust receipts and L/C transactions he had entered into in

its obligations, Novachem would normally give instructions to behalf of Novachem.

Chinabank as to what particular L/C or trust receipt obligation its

Settled is the rule that debts incurred by directors, officers, and
payments would be applied. However, the latter deviated from the
employees acting as corporate agents are not their direct liability but
special arrangement and misapplied payments intended for the
of the corporation they represent, except if they contractually
subject L/Cs and exacted unconscionably high interests and penalty
agree/stipulate or assume to be personally liable for the corporations
charges.
debts,14ςrνll as in this case.
The RTC and the CA adjudged petitioner personally and solidarily Case Digest:
liable with Novachem for the obligations secured by the subject trust
receipts based on the finding that he signed the guarantee clauses
therein in his personal capacity and even waived the benefit of
G.R. No. 199481               December 3, 2012
excussion. However, a review of the records shows that petitioner
ILDEFONSO S. CRISOLOGO, Petitioner, 
signed only the guarantee clauses of the Trust Receipt dated May 24, vs.
198915ςrνll and the corresponding Application and Agreement for PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CHINA BANKING
Commercial Letter of Credit No. L/C No. 89/0301. 16Ï‚rνll With CORPORATION, Respondents.

respect to the Trust Receipt 17ςrνll dated August 31, 1989 and
FACTS:
Irrevocable Letter of Credit18ςrνll No. L/C No. DOM-33041 issued
to SMC for the glass containers, the second pages of these Petitioner is the President of Novachemical Industries, Inc.
(Novachem). He applied for commercial letters of credit from
documents that would have reflected the guarantee clauses were private respondent China Banking Corporation (Chinabank) to
missing and did not form part of the prosecution's formal offer of finance the purchase of amoxicillin trihydrate micronized from
Hyundai Chemical Company based in Seoul, South Korea and glass
evidence. In relation thereto, Chinabank stipulated 19ςrνll before the
containers from San Miguel Corporation (SMC). Subsequently,
CA that the second page of the August 31, 1989 Trust Receipt Chinabank issued Letters of Credit. After petitioner received the
attached to the complaint before the court a quo would serve as the goods, he executed for and in behalf of Novachem the
corresponding trust receipt agreements dated May 24, 1989 and
missing page. A perusal of the said page, however, reveals that the August 31, 1989 in favor of Chinabank.
same does not bear the signature of the petitioner in the guarantee Chinabank, through its Staff Assistant, Ms. Maria Rosario De Mesa
clause. Hence, it was error for the CA to hold petitioner likewise (Ms. De Mesa), filed before the City Prosecutor's Office of Manila a
Complaint-Affidavit charging petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 115
liable for the obligation secured by the said trust receipt (L/C No. in relation to Article 315 1(b) of the RPC for his purported failure to
DOM-33041). Neither was sufficient evidence presented to prove turn-over the goods or the proceeds from the sale, despite
repeated demands. It averred that the latter, with intent to defraud,
that petitioner acted in bad faith or with gross negligence as regards
and with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, misapplied,
the transaction that would have held him civilly liable for his actions misappropriated and converted the goods subject of the trust
in his capacity as President of Novachem. agreements, to its damage and prejudice.
The RTC Decision acquitted petitioner Ildefonso S. Crisologo
(petitioner) of the charges for violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
On the matter of interest, while petitioner assailed the unilateral
No. 115 (Trust Receipts Law) in relation to Article 315 1(b) of the
imposition of interest at rates above the stipulated 18% p.a., he failed Revised Penal Code (RPC), but adjudged him civilly liable under the
to submit a summary of the pertinent dates when excessive interests subject letters of credit. The Court of Appeals (CA) in affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court. Hence this petition for Review
were imposed and the purported over-payments that should be on Certiorari.
refunded. Having failed to prove his affirmative defense, the Court ISSUE:
finds no reason to disturb the amount awarded to Chinabank. Settled Whether or not Crisologo is civilly liable under the Trust Receipts
is the rule that in civil cases, the party who asserts the affirmative of Law.
an issue has the onus to prove his assertion in order to obtain a RULING:
favorable judgment. Thus, the burden rests on the debtor to prove The Supreme Court PARTLY GRANTED the petition.
payment rather than on the creditor to prove non-payment.20ςrνll Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law explicitly provides that if the
violation or offense is committed by a corporation, as in this case,
the penalty provided for under the law shall be imposed upon the
Lastly, the Court affirms Ms. De Mesa's capacity to sue on behalf of
directors, officers, employees or other officials or person
Chinabank despite the lack of proof of authority to represent the responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities
latter. The Court noted that as Staff Assistant of Chinabank, Ms. De arising from the criminal offense.

Mesa was tasked, among others, to review applications for L/Cs, In this case, petitioner was acquitted of the charge for violation of
the Trust Receipts Law in relation to Article 315 1(b) of the RPC. As
verify the documents of title and possession of goods covered by such, he is relieved of the corporate criminal liability as well as the
L/Cs, as well as pertinent documents under trust receipts (TRs); corresponding civil liability arising therefrom. However, as correctly
found by the RTC and the CA, he may still be held liable for the trust
prepare/send/cause the preparation of statements of accounts receipts and L/C transactions he had entered into in behalf of
reflecting the outstanding balance under the said L/Cs and/or TRs, Novachem.
and accept the corresponding payments; refer unpaid obligations to Crisologo is only liable for only one trust receipt that he signed his
personal capacity in as much as the guarantee clauses therein is
Chinabank's lawyers and follow-up results thereon. As such, she was
concerned.
in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations in the Complaint-Affidavit. Besides, petitioner
21
voluntarily submitted ςrνll to the jurisdiction of the court a quo
and did not question Ms. De Mesa's authority to represent Chinabank
in the instant case until an adverse decision was rendered against
him.ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr

WHEREFORE, the assailed November 23, 2011 Decision of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80350 is AFFIRMED with the
modification absolving petitioner lldefonso S. Crisologo from any
civil liability to private respondent China Banking Corporation with
respect to the Trust Receipt dated August 31, 1989 and L/C No.
DOM-33041. The rest of the Decision stands.ςrαlαωlιbrαr

SO ORDERED.