Title
People vs. Concepcion
Case
G.R. No. 19190
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1922
PNB President Venancio Concepcion authorized a P300,000 credit to a firm co-owned by his wife, violating banking laws. Convicted despite repayment, he argued good faith, but the court ruled intent irrelevant under public policy.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 72969-70)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Case Background
    • Parties
      • Plaintiff and Appellee: The People of the Philippine Islands
      • Defendant and Appellant: Venancio Concepcion, President of the Philippine National Bank
    • Transaction at Issue
      • Between April 10 and May 7, 1919, President Concepcion authorized an extension of credit of ₱300,000 to the firm “Puno y Concepcion, S. en C.” at the Aparri branch.
      • This exceeded the local manager’s discretionary limit (₱5,000, increasable to ₱10,000) under a May 17, 1918 memorandum by President Concepcion.
      • Security consisted solely of six demand notes; all notes and interest were paid by July 17, 1919.
  • Composition of the Borrower
    • “Puno y Concepcion, S. en C.” was capitalized at ₱100,000 with contributions:
      • Anacleto Concepcion: ₱5,000
      • Clara Vda. de Concepcion: ₱5,000
      • Miguel S. Concepcion: ₱20,000 (administrator of the firm)
      • Clemente Puno: ₱20,000
      • Rosario San Agustin (wife of Venancio Concepcion): ₱50,000
  • Trial Court Proceedings
    • Charge: Violation of Section 35, Act No. 2747 (1918), prohibiting loans by the National Bank to its directors or branch agents.
    • Penal Provision: Section 49, Act No. 2747—fine up to ₱10,000, and/or imprisonment up to five years.
    • Conviction and Sentence (Court of First Instance of Cagayan, Judge Enrique V. Filamor):
      • Imprisonment for one year and six months
      • Fine of ₱3,000 (with subsidiary imprisonment)
      • Costs
    • Repeal: Sections 35 and 49 were repealed by Act No. 2938 (January 30, 1921), before filing of information and judgment.

Issues:

  • Whether the granting of a ₱300,000 “credit” was a “loan” under Section 35, Act No. 2747.
  • Whether the transaction constituted a “loan” or merely a “discount.”
  • Whether the credit to a partnership including the director’s wife was an “indirect loan.”
  • Whether repeal of Sections 35 and 49 before prosecution deprived the court of jurisdiction.
  • Whether the prohibition in Section 35 carried any personal penal sanction against the director.
  • Whether the defendant’s good faith reliance on Insular Auditor rulings and absence of loss furnish a legal defense.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.