Facts:
– On October 29, 1996, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) extended a credit accommodation to Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC) via an Omnibus Credit Line Agreement.
– ACDC utilized the Letters of Credit/Trust Receipts Facility under the Agreement to procure construction materials.
– Respondents Lamberto C. Perez, Nestor C. Kun, Ma. Estelita P. Angeles-Panlilio, and Napoleon Garcia, officers of ACDC, executed trust receipts linked to these materials, totalling P52,344,096.32.
– Upon maturity of the trust receipts, ACDC failed to remit proceeds from projects or return the materials, prompting LBP to send a demand letter on May 4, 1999.
– Responding to non-compliance, LBP filed a criminal complaint for estafa against the respondents with the City Prosecutor’s Office in Makati City on June 7, 1999. The respondents contested, citing unremitted client payments for government projects.
– The Makati Assistant City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint due to insufficient evidence, notably the lack of specific details on the release and execution dates of the trust receipts.
– LBP’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to an appeal. The Secretary of Justice reversed the dismissal on August 1, 2002, ordering the filing of estafa charges against the respondents.
– The Court of Appeals (CA), however, on January 20, 2005, ruled in favor of the respondents, identifying the transactions as loans instead of trust receipts, leading LBP to file a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether the transactions between LBP and ACDC, under the Letters of Credit/Trust Receipts Facility, constitute trust receipt transactions under Presidential Decree No. 115.
2. If the transactions were trust receipt transactions, whether the respondents committed estafa.
3. The appropriateness of criminal proceedings given the assignment of the loan rights and settlement of obligations.
Court’s Decision:
– The Supreme Court denied LBP’s petition, upholding the CA’s decision. It determined that the transactions were not genuine trust receipt transactions under PD 115, as the return of the construction materials or their proceeds as envisioned under a trust receipt agreement was never feasible from the start. The transactions were effectively treated as loans.
– Consequently, the ruling clarified that an action for estafa should not be pursued against the respondents since the nature of the agreement did not fall under the Trust Receipts Law.
– Additionally, the court noted procedural issues with the petition, particularly LBP’s lack of authority in proceeding with the criminal complaint without the involvement of the Office of the Solicitor General.
Doctrine:
1. A transaction is not considered a trust receipt under PD 115 if it inherently lacks the possibility of returning the goods or their proceeds to the entruster, thereby classifying the transaction merely as a loan.
2. An estafa charge under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to PD 115, is inapplicable in cases where the transaction does not genuinely fall under the ambit of trust receipt agreements.
3. The criminal aspect of a case cannot proceed before the Supreme Court without the participation or consent of the Office of the Solicitor General.
Class Notes:
– Trust Receipt Transactions: Defined under PD 115; involves an entruster releasing goods to an entrustee with the obligation of returning the proceeds of sold goods or the goods themselves if unsold.
– Estafa under Trust Receipts Law: Entrustee’s failure to turn over the proceeds or return the goods as stipulated constitutes estafa, assuming intent to defraud.
– Parties in Legal Proceedings: The Office of the Solicitor General must represent the government in all criminal proceedings before higher courts; private parties lack standing to proceed criminally without OSG involvement.
Historical Background:
This case highlights the complexities of financial transactions labeled under “trust receipts” within the Philippines’ legal framework, particularly how the intended use of acquired materials can dictate the nature of the transaction (loan versus trust receipt). It underscores the judiciary’s role in clarifying the boundaries of financial and contractual agreements against the backdrop of evolving commercial practices.
Leave a Reply