Title
Pilipinas Bank vs. Ong
Case
G.R. No. 133176
Decision Date
Aug 8, 2002
Bank's trust receipt claim against BMC dismissed; MOA novated obligations, shifting liability to civil, not criminal, due to debt rescheduling and SEC-approved rehabilitation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133176)

Factual Background

In April 1991, BMC, through its president Ong, applied for a commercial letter of credit with Pilipinas Bank, resulting in the issuance of Letter of Credit No. 91/725-HO for P3,500,000. To secure this amount, BMC executed two trust receipts, obligating it to either turn over the proceeds of the sold goods or return the goods themselves by specified maturity dates. BMC defaulted on its obligations under these trust receipts and subsequently filed a petition for rehabilitation in November 1991, leading to a state of suspension of payments.

Legal Proceedings

The bank filed complaints against Ong and Lim in 1994 for violating the Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115) due to their failure to pay their obligations under the trust receipts. The initial resolution recommended dismissal, a ruling subsequently upheld by the Department of Justice after the bank's motion for reconsideration was denied. Following this, the bank sought a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

On August 29, 1997, the Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of the bank, setting aside the earlier resolutions and directing the filing of criminal charges against Ong and Lim. However, upon reconsideration, the Court reversed its decision, holding that the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed by BMC and its creditors effectively novated the trust receipt agreement, thus preventing any further charges under the Trust Receipts Law.

Arguments of the Parties

The bank contended that the MOA did not novate the trust obligations but merely rescheduled them, allowing the revival of its rights under the original trust agreements upon any default. In contrast, Ong and Lim argued that the MOA served as a compromise, converting the contractual relationship into one of an ordinary creditor-debtor, thus negating their liability under the Trust Receipts Law.

Legal Principles Involved

Deciding whether a contract is novated involves determining if the new obligations are incompatible with the original ones. Only substantial changes in aspects such as the nature of the contract, juridical relationships, or obligations can indicate novation. The Supreme Court referred to established jurisprudence regarding novation and the pertinent definitions of trust receipts.

Analysis of Novation

The Supreme Court concluded that the MOA indeed constituted novation as it introduced essential changes to the obligations under the trust receipt agreement, including alterations to the nature of the contract from trust receipt to loan, and adjustments in the relationships, repayment terms, and governing laws. Therefore, the MOA extinguished BMC's obligations under the original agreement.

Conclusi

...continue reading

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