Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Trust Receipts

Trust Receipts

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,452 |Likes:
Published by BonAntonetteComia
Rulings in the digest--as per D.D's book. :P so they're short. :P
Rulings in the digest--as per D.D's book. :P so they're short. :P

More info:

Published by: BonAntonetteComia on Jun 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 SPCL Trust Receipts
Comia, A.T
TRUST RECEIPT 1. Ong V. Court of Appeals, 124 SCRA 578 (1983)2. Vintola v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, 150 SCRA 140 (1987)3. Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 153 SCRA 276 (1987)4.
Allied Banking Corporation v. Ordoñez
, 192 SCRA 246 (1990)5. Philippine National Bank V. Pineda, 197 SCRA 1 (1991)6. People v. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 706 (1992)7. Prudential Bank v. National Labor Relations Commission, 251 SCRA 421 (1995)8. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tonda, 338 SCRA 254 (2000)9. Colinares V. Court of Appeals, 339 SCRA 609; (Consolidated Bank and Trust Company v. Court of  Appeals, 356 SCRA 671 (2001))10. Philippine Bank of Communications v. CA and Filipinas Textile Mill, 352 SCRA 616 (2001)11. South City Homes, Inc. v. BA Finance Corporation, 371 SCRA 603 (2001)12. Lee v. Court of Appeals, 375 SCRA 579 (2002)13. Pilipinas Bank v. Ong, 387 SCRA 37 (2002)14. Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 394 SCRA 315 (2002)15. Ong v. Court of Appeals, 401 SCRA 649 (2003)16. Landl & Company v. Metropolitan Bank, 435 SCRA 639 (2004)17. Rosario Textile Mills Corp. v. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company, 462 SCRA 88 (2005)18. Tupaz IV v. CA, 475 SCRA 398 (2005)19. DBP v. Prudential Bank, 475 SCRA 623 (2005)20. Ching V. Secretary of Justice, 481 SCRA 609 (2006)
Page 1 of 26
 SPCL Trust Receipts
Comia, A.T
1. Ong V. Court of Appeals, 124 SCRA 578 (1983)
-Fernando Ong obtained and received from Tramat Merchantile Inc. several units of machineries for the purpose of displaying and selling the machineries for cash, under the express obligation on the part of Ong to turn over toTramat the proceeds from the sale of the goods, if sold, or to return the said goods if not sold.-Ong allegedly failed to do as covenanted.-An information of estafa was filed against Ong.-A few months after, Tramat Merchantile filed a complaint against Ong for sum of money.-The parties entered into a compromise agreement to settle the claim, which the court approved.-Ong moved for the dismissal of the of the criminal charge of estafa against him on the ground of NOVATION byvirtue of the compromise agreement entered into by him and Tramat.
-Denied the motion to dismiss the charge of estafa.
-Dismissed petition for certiorari on the ground that novation does not extinguish criminal liability if the crime of estafa had been completed.
-Whether or not the compromise agreement constitute as novation, thus, extinguish the criminal liability of Ong.
-There being novation, it is respectfully submitted that even if novation took place after the filing of the information inthe criminal case, the transaction had nonetheless been converted from a criminal violation to civil obligation whichwould therefore necessitate the consequence dismissal of the criminal case.
 After the filing of information for estafa, liability of accused cannot be novated into a civil one anymore by the parties’ compromise agreement.—
The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminalinformation in court by the state prosecutors because up to that time the by the trust relation may be converted bythe parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the complainant in in estoppels to insist theoriginal trust. But after the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted action in court, the
Page 2 of 26
 SPCL Trust Receipts
Comia, A.T
offended party may no longer divest rhe prosecution of its power to exact criminal liability, as distinguished fromcivil. The crime being an offense against the State, only the latter can renounce it.
2. Vintola v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, 150 SCRA 140 (1987)
Spouses Vintola, doing business under the name and style Dax Kin International was engaged in the manufactureof raw sea shells into finished products.-They applied for and were granted a domestic letter of credit by applied for and were granted a domestic letter of credit by the Insular Bank of Asia and America (IBAA), Cebu City. The Letter of Credit authorized the bank tonegotiate for their account drafts drawn by their supplier, one Stalin Tan, on Dax Kin International for the purchaseof puka and olive seashells.-VINTOLAS received from Stalin Tan the puka and olive shells and executed a Trust Receipt agreement with IBAA.Under that Agreement, the VINTOLAS agreed to hold the goods in trust for IBAA as the "latter's property with libertyto sell the same for its account, " and "in case of sale" to turn over the proceeds.-Having defaulted on their obligation, IBAA demanded payment from the VINTOLAS. The VINTOLAS, who wereunable to dispose of the shells, responded by offering to return the goods. IBAA refused to accept the merchandise,and due to the continued refusal of the VINTOLAS to make good their undertaking, IBAA charged them with Estafafor having misappropriated, misapplied and converted for their own personal use and benefit the aforesaid goods.-During the trial of the criminal case the VINTOLAS turned over the seashells to the custody of the Trial Court.
-Acquitted the VINTOLAS of the crime charged, after finding that the element of misappropriation or conversion wasinexistent.-IBAA commenced a separate civil action to recover the goods.
-Holding that the complaint was barred by the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case, CA dismissed thecomplaint, however, upon motion by IBAA, CA granted the reconsideration.-Sps. Vintola appealed alleging that their acquittal in the Estafa case bars IBAA's filing of the civil action becauseIBAA had not reserved in the criminal case its right to enforce separately their civil liability. They maintain that byintervening actively in the prosecution of the criminal case through a private prosecutor, IBAA had chosen to file thecivil action impliedly with the criminal action-The CA certified the case to the Supreme Court, the issue involved being purely legal.
-Whether or not the acquittal of the Sps. Vintola in the criminal charge of estafa extinguished their civil liability.
Page 3 of 26

Activity (13)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Arthur J. Patiga liked this
jef28 liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Dayday Able liked this
Ruby Sumague liked this
artzone101 liked this
Mendoza Rudthen liked this
Cheche Ragodon liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->