Case Digest (G.R. No. 112550)
Facts:
Dick L. Go v. Court of Appeals and Security Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 112550, February 05, 2001, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares-Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dick L. Go (an Assistant Manager-in-charge at SBTC Congressional Branch) was sued in a civil action by respondent Security Bank & Trust Company (SBTC) (and was criminally charged jointly with others) after two Philippine National Bank (PNB) manager's checks—procured by National Steel Corporation (NSC) to pay customs duties—were diverted and deposited into accounts opened in the name of one Robert/Roberto Santos at SBTC. The checks had been delivered to a brokerage firm that handled customs release; NSC received purported official receipts but later discovered they were forged and had to pay customs duties a second time. SBTC reimbursed PNB for the refunded checks and sought recovery from employees it implicated in the diversion.
The trial court found that the two checks were deposited in accounts in the name of Robert Santos (an account opened May 31, 1982 at SBTC Congressional Branch and another opened June 21, 1982 at SBTC Caloocan Branch), and that withdrawals and transfers were effected thereafter. SBTC’s internal probe implicated petitioner, Eduardo Lauchengco and Generoso Fermin in the opening of the Santos accounts, depositing the checks notwithstanding that they were payable to the Collector of Customs, and siphoning proceeds. Criminal informations for estafa through falsification of commercial documents were filed and tried jointly with SBTC’s civil complaint (Civil Case No. Q-35744).
The trial court acquitted petitioner and his co-accused of the criminal charges for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and dismissed SBTC’s civil complaint and petitioner’s counterclaim. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court’s civil judgment: it affirmed many of the trial court’s antecedent factual findings but made several “corrections and deletions” and added factual findings, concluding that petitioner and Lauchengco should pay SBTC P1,307,811.62 with interest. The Court of Appeals reasoned that petitioner initiated the opening of the Santos account, that Robert Santos was fictitious (implying petitioner and Santos were the same), that petitioner approved clearing statements and facilitated transfers, and that petitioner received the Santos checkbook—findings based largely on witness testimony it credited.
Petitioner filed a petition for review to the S...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in setting aside the trial court’s factual and dispositive findings?
- Did the evidence establish petitioner’s indispensable participation such that SBTC was entitled to recover the proceeds of the two manager...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)