Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crisologo V People of The Phil and China Bank
Crisologo V People of The Phil and China Bank
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
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
SO ORDERED.