Case Digest (G.R. No. 211222)
Facts:
This is Allan S. Cu v. Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation through Mr. Hector M. Olmedillo, G.R. No. 211222, August 07, 2017, First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. Allan S. Cu (petitioner) and his co-signatory Lucia C. Pascual issued numerous postdated checks to Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation (SB Corp., respondent) arising from drawdowns under an Omnibus Credit Line Agreement between SB Corp. and Golden 7 Bank (Rural Bank of Nabua, Inc.) (G7 Bank). The checks at issue matured in October 2008.On July 31, 2008 the Monetary Board closed G7 Bank and designated the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) as receiver; PDIC took over the bank on August 1, 2008, issued a cease-and-desist order, and closed the bank’s deposit accounts, including its account with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). SB Corp. deposited the subject postdated checks in October 2008 but they were dishonored for reason “Account Closed.” SB Corp. sent demand letters; when payment was not made it filed a Complaint-Affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati. Informations for five counts of violation of B.P. 22 were filed against Cu and Pascual and raffled to Branch 65 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Makati City.
On April 5, 2010 the MeTC dismissed the B.P. 22 cases, finding that the receivership/closure of G7 Bank put custody and control of the bank’s assets in the receiver and therefore made it impossible for the officers to fund the checks; the MeTC denied SB Corp.’s motion for reconsideration on June 25, 2010. SB Corp. appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Makati City; on May 2, 2011 the RTC affirmed the MeTC’s dismissal. SB Corp.’s motion for reconsideration to the RTC was denied. SB Corp. then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. SP No. 121573). The CA Eighth Division (Decision penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes‑Carpio, concurring Justices Rosalinda Asuncion‑Vicente and Priscilla J. Baltazar‑Padilla) granted SB Corp.’s petition, vacated and set aside the RTC decision, and remanded the cases to the MeTC for further proceedings (Decision dated October 16, 2013; Resolution denying Cu’s motion for reconsideration dated February 6, 2014).
Cu filed this Peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was SB Corp. authorized to file the petition with the Court of Appeals to reinstate the criminal prosecution, or is the appeal of a dismissal of a criminal case an act reserved to the State through the Office of the Solicitor General?
- Did the MeTC and the RTC gravely abuse their discretion in dismissing the B.P. 22 c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)