G.R. No. 179018 - Paglaum Management and Development Corp. vs. Union Bank of the Philippines

Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation (SB Corp.) is a government financial institution mandated to provide credit to qualified micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs).
Golden 7 Bank (G7 Bank), a rural bank, was one of SB Corp.'s clients and was granted initially a P50,000,000 credit line for re-lending to MSMEs, which was later increased to P90,000,000.
In connection with the increased credit line, G7 Bank’s Board of Directors authorized any two of four officers, including petitioner Allan S. Cu ("Cu") and Lucia C. Pascual, to sign loan documents and postdated checks for payment.

Cu and Pascual issued over 100 postdated checks covering various drawdowns from the credit line. The five disputed checks, dated October 6-17, 2008, totaled several million pesos.
On July 31, 2008, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) placed G7 Bank under receivership, and subsequently, Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) took possession on August 1, 2008.
PDIC issued a cease and desist order withdrawing authority from the bank officers, took control of assets, and closed all G7 Bank accounts, including the account against which the disputed checks were drawn.

When SB Corp. deposited the postdated checks in October 2008, they were dishonored for "Account Closed."
SB Corp. sent demand letters to Cu and Pascual for payment, which went unheeded.
SB Corp. filed a Complaint-Affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22 – law on bouncing checks) before the City Prosecutor.
Information was filed and raffled to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Makati City, Branch 65.

PDIC filed a petition for assistance in liquidation of G7 Bank on October 15, 2009, pending before RTC Branch 21 in Naga City.
SB Corp. filed its Notice of Appearance and Notice of Claims with the liquidation court on January 28, 2010.

Cu and Pascual filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the criminal cases, arguing that the receivership suspended their authority to fund the checks and that liquidation court had exclusive jurisdiction over obligations of G7 Bank.
The MeTC, in an order dated April 5, 2010, dismissed the criminal charges, holding that receivership suspended the bank officers’ authority over assets, making it impossible for them to honor the checks.
SB Corp.’s motion for reconsideration was denied; RTC affirmed the dismissal on May 2, 2011.
SB Corp.'s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied.

SB Corp. filed a petition for review under Rule 42 with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted the petition, vacated the RTC decision, and remanded the cases to MeTC for further proceedings.
Cu’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on February 6, 2014.
Cu filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court assailing the CA’s decision and resolution. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was instructed to comment.
The OSG filed its Comment supporting the view that the appeal by SB Corp. was proper, while Cu contended SB Corp. lacked authority to appeal the dismissal in the criminal case as only OSG may represent the State in such matters.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing SB Corp.’s petition for review on certiorari on the ground that only the State, through the Solicitor General, may appeal the dismissal of a criminal case, and SB Corp., as private offended party, lacked such authority.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the May 2, 2011 Decision and September 5, 2011 Resolution of the RTC affirming the dismissal of the criminal cases against Cu for violation of B.P. 22.