Title
Bank of Commerce vs. Serrano
Case
G.R. No. 151895
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2005
Bank of Commerce sued Teresita Serrano for estafa over unpaid trust receipts; Supreme Court upheld her acquittal, ruling no personal liability as she acted as Via Moda’s representative.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191079)

Facts of the Case

Bank of Commerce, originally known as Boston Bank of the Philippines, provided an export packing loan of US$50,000 to Via Moda International, Inc., a domestic entity represented by Teresita S. Serrano, for the import of textile materials. The loan was secured via a Deed of Assignment over an Irrevocable Transferable Letter of Credit and a Promissory Note executed by Serrano. The trust receipt obligating Via Moda to manage the goods and remit proceeds from their sale was executed on April 21, 1994. Via Moda later shipped the goods to a consignee in New Jersey, USA, but the proceeds from the sale were not remitted to the bank as required by the trust receipt.

Procedural History

On November 16, 1994, Bank of Commerce demanded payment of the outstanding balance plus interest and penalties after Via Moda failed to remit the proceeds. The debt escalated, reaching P4,783,487.15 by December 15, 1998. Subsequently, Serrano was charged with estafa under Article 315(b) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree No. 115. The Regional Trial Court found her guilty and sentenced her to imprisonment and ordered her to pay the bank.

Court of Appeals Decision

Serrano appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the essential element of misappropriation necessary for estafa was absent. The Court ruled that Serrano was not personally liable under the trust receipt because she executed it in representation of Via Moda and not in her personal capacity. The appellate court also deleted her civil liability, determining there was no evidence to pierce the corporate veil of Via Moda.

Issues for Resolution

The principal issues raised by the petitioner pertained to whether Serrano was jointly and severally liable with Via Moda under the Guarantee Clause of the Letter of Credit and whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting Serrano's civil liability.

Petitioner’s Argument on Civil Liability

The petitioner argued that the Guarantee Clause made Serrano jointly and solidarily liable for the obligations under the Loan secured via the trust receipt. However, the Court noted that issues surrounding the liability based on the Guarantee Clause were not presented in the trial court or the appellate court and could not be raised for the first time in the current appeal due to the principles of fair play and due process.

Determination of Liability

The Court of Appeals concluded that Serrano could not be held civilly liable since she was not made personally liable in the trust receipt, which was a corporate obligation of Via Moda. The appellate court pointed out that the proceeds from the sale of the goods were applied by the bank to Via Moda’s other oblig

...continue reading

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