Case Digest (G.R. No. 192391)
Facts:
Estate of Honorio Poblador, Jr., represented by Rafael A. Poblador, petitioner, vs. Rosario L. Manzano, respondent, G.R. No. 192391, June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner estate (through its administratrix Elsa A. Poblador and heir‑representative Rafael A. Poblador) owned one share of stock in Wack‑Wack Golf and Country Club, Inc. (the Wack‑Wack Share). Pursuant to an Order of the Probate Court, Elsa was authorized to negotiate the sale of certain estate properties, including the Wack‑Wack Share. In September 1996 Rosario L. Manzano, a broker employed by Metroland Holdings, Inc., prepared computations and assisted in brokering a sale of the Wack‑Wack Share to Moreland Realty, Inc. The parties executed a Deed of Absolute Sale for P18,000,000; Moreland paid Elsa P15,200,000 by check, and an alleged balance of P2,800,000 was given to Manzano purportedly to cover capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax and broker’s fees.
The Probate Court later annulled the sale; Moreland was refunded the purchase money and taxes. Petitioner nonetheless demanded that Manzano return the alleged P2,800,000. Rafael, via the estate’s accountant, requested accounting from Manzano, who faxed various documents (cover letter, copies of a Capital Gains Tax Return, BIR certifications, authority receipts, and the Deed of Sale). A certified copy from the BIR showed that only P80,000 was actually validated as paid for the capital gains tax, contradicting the typewritten P1,480,000 figure in the faxed return. Petitioner thereupon filed an Information for Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code against Manzano (Crim. Case No. 113549) and, during the criminal proceedings, petitioner sought civil damages ex delicto.
At the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (Branch 157), Manzano filed a Demurrer to Evidence. In an Order dated January 13, 2003, the RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the Estafa complaint for failure to prove all the elements of estafa through misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b), finding absence of deceit and noting that Rafael knew of and concurred in the arrangements; the court also held Manzano was entitled to a broker’s fee of P900,000. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated March 11, 2003.
Petitioner appealed the civil aspect (civil liability ex delicto) to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated September 30, 2009, the CA denied the appeal, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove both the elements of estafa by misappropriation and any civil liability ex delicto. The CA emphasized that petitioner admitted receipt of the agreed net proceeds (P15,200,000), that Rafael could not identify who paid the taxes or when, and that petitioner dealt with Manzano only in her capacity as a Metroland employee. The CA also noted pari delict...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err, as a matter of law, in denying petitioner’s appeal on the civil liability ex delicto of Manzano?
- When the elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code are not established (particularly misappropriation), can civil liability ex delicto be imposed in the criminal case or does it fail as a matter of law ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)