Case Digest (G.R. No. 242414) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Perez et al., G.R. No. 166884, decided on June 13, 2012 under the 1987 Constitution, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), a government financial institution, filed on June 7, 1999 before the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office a criminal complaint for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 115 (the Trust Receipts Law) against respondents Lamberto C. Perez, Nestor C. Kun, Ma. Estelita P. Angeles-Panlilio, and Napoleon O. Garcia, all officers of Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC). LBP alleged that pursuant to an Omnibus Credit Line Agreement dated October 29, 1996, ACDC purchased construction materials through trust receipts with an aggregate principal amount of ₱52,344,096.32, but failed to return the materials or their proceeds upon maturity. A demand letter dated May 4, 1999, sought payment of ₱66,425,924.39, yet ACDC did not comply. The Makati Assistant C Case Digest (G.R. No. 242414) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Credit facility and trust receipts
- On October 29, 1996, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC) executed an Omnibus Credit Line Agreement, granting ACDC a Letters of Credit/Trust Receipts Facility to buy construction materials.
- Respondents Lamberto C. Perez, Nestor C. Kun, Ma. Estelita P. Angeles-Panlilio, and Napoleon O. Garcia, as ACDC officers, signed ten trust receipts covering construction materials worth a total principal of P52,344,096.32; the receipts matured without return of materials or remittance of proceeds.
- Respondents’ defense and pre-trial proceedings
- Respondents argued the trust receipts lacked required details (goods description, invoice values, maturity dates in violation of P.D. 115, Sec. 5(a)), ACDC was a government subcontractor, and no proceeds had been received from clients, negating misappropriation.
- Makati Assistant City Prosecutor Amador Y. Pineda dismissed the estafa complaint on September 30, 1999 for insufficient evidence; the Secretary of Justice reversed this dismissal on August 1, 2002; the respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on February 17, 2003; the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76588 reinstated dismissal on January 20, 2005.
- Petition for review and subsequent developments
- LBP filed a Rule 45 petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on March 15, 2005, challenging the Court of Appeals’ application of Colinares v. Court of Appeals.
- While pending, respondents moved to dismiss on April 8, 2010, alleging LBP assigned its loan rights to Philippine Opportunities for Growth and Income, Inc. (June 23, 2005) and that Avent Holdings Corporation settled ACDC’s obligations on October 8, 2009.
Issues:
- Substantive issue
- Whether the transactions constituted genuine trust receipt transactions under P.D. 115 or were merely loans not actionable as estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) RPC in relation to Sec. 13, P.D. 115.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying Colinares v. Court of Appeals to conclude the absence of a trust receipt relationship.
- Procedural and jurisdictional issue
- Whether LBP’s petition should be dismissed for failure to involve the Office of the Solicitor General in criminal proceedings.
- Whether LBP’s assignment of its rights and Avent Holdings’ settlement extinguished its standing and cause of action.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)