Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Perez
Case
G.R. No. 166884
Decision Date
Jun 13, 2012
The Court of Appeals dismissed Land Bank's estafa complaint against Asian Construction officers, ruling the transactions were simply loans, not violations of trust receipts.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 166884)

Facts:

  • The case involves Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) as the petitioner and Lamberto C. Perez, Nestor C. Kun, Ma. Estelita P. Angeles-Panlilio, and Napoleon O. Garcia as respondents, who are officers of Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC).
  • On June 7, 1999, LBP filed a criminal complaint for estafa against the respondents at the City Prosecutor's Office in Makati City.
  • The complaint alleged violations of Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code and Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 115 (Trust Receipts Law).
  • LBP had extended credit to ACDC through an Omnibus Credit Line Agreement on October 29, 1996, allowing ACDC to purchase construction materials using Letters of Credit/Trust Receipts.
  • ACDC executed trust receipts for a total principal amount of P52,344,096.32 but failed to return the proceeds or materials upon maturity.
  • LBP sent a demand letter on May 4, 1999, for payment of P66,425,924.39, which ACDC did not comply with.
  • The respondents argued that the trust receipts lacked essential details and were signed simultaneously with the loan documents, violating the Trust Receipts Law.
  • The Assistant City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint on September 30, 1999, due to insufficient evidence, but the Secretary of Justice later reversed this dismissal.
  • The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents, stating the transactions were merely a loan, not trust receipts.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding that the transactions were loans, not trust receipts.
  • Consequently, ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court determined that the transactions did not fulfill the legal definition of a trust receipt transaction as per Section 4 of P.D. 115.
  • A trust receipt transaction requires the entruster to release goods to the entrustee upon execution of a signed trust receipt, obligating the entrustee to return the goods or their sale proceeds.
  • The Court found that both parties understood ACDC could not return the construction materials once used, indic...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.