Case Digest (G.R. No. 230923)
Facts:
The case involves BDO Unibank, Inc. (petitioner) and Francisco Pua (respondent). The events leading to the case began on January 20, 1993, when the petitioner entered into an Investment Management Agreement (IMA) with Ernesto Ang, designating the bank as the agent and investment manager for Ang's funds. Subsequently, similar agreements were executed with Edgard Ang, Trilogy Properties Corporation, and Lucia and Sharlene Po. Respondent, through the petitioner, borrowed P41,500,000.00 from the funds invested by these original funders. On May 7, 1997, respondent expressed his intention to change the funders of the loan. On May 9, 1997, he delivered two checks totaling P41,500,000.00, drawn against a closed account, to the petitioner, claiming that Efrain de Mayo was the new funder. The checks were dishonored upon presentation, leading the petitioner to demand payment from the respondent. Despite repeated demands, the respondent failed to pay, prompting the petitioner to file...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 230923)
Facts:
Background of the Parties:
- Petitioner: BDO Unibank, Inc. (formerly Equitable Banking Corporation), a domestic expanded commercial bank authorized to perform trust or agency functions, including investment management.
- Respondent: Francisco Pua, a client of the petitioner, engaged in business under the trade name "Trends & Innovation Marketing."
Investment Management Agreements (IMAs):
- Petitioner entered into IMAs with several individuals and entities, including Ernesto Ang (20 January 1993), Edgard Ang (31 August 1993), Trilogy Properties Corporation (12 December 1996), and Lucia and Sharlene Po (28 February 1997). These agreements authorized petitioner to act as an investment manager for their funds.
Loan to Respondent:
- Respondent borrowed P41,500,000.00 from the funds invested by the Original Funders (Ernesto Ang, Edgard Ang, Trilogy Properties Corporation, Lucia Po, and Sharlene Po). The loan was released to respondent based on the specific directive and authority to lend signed by the Original Funders.
Change of Funders:
- On 7 May 1997, respondent informed petitioner of his intention to change the Original Funders of the loan. On 9 May 1997, respondent delivered two checks totaling P41,500,000.00, drawn against a closed account, and informed petitioner that Efrain de Mayo (later renamed R. Makmur) was the new funder.
Dishonored Checks and Demand for Payment:
- The checks were dishonored due to the account being closed. Petitioner demanded payment from respondent, but no payment was made. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa by means of deceit against respondent.
Respondent’s Defense:
- Respondent admitted his obligation under the loan but argued that he did not deceive petitioner. He claimed that petitioner had the sole discretion to replace and accept a funder and that he was not a party to the IMA between petitioner and its funders.
Prosecution and Dismissal:
- The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila (OCP-Manila) initially dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed this decision and ordered the filing of an information for estafa against respondent. The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed it for lack of probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s dismissal of the criminal case for estafa by means of deceit against respondent for lack of probable cause.
- Whether petitioner had the authority to file the petition without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition with respect to the criminal aspect of the case but remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings on the civil aspect. Petitioner may pursue civil remedies against respondent for the recovery of the amount paid to the Original Funders.