03 PNB Vs Soriano

DLSU COLLEGE OF LAW | COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW | G01 | SY 2016-2017
CASE NO. 3 (MENDOZA)

CASE NAME/TITLE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. LILIAN S. SORIANO, respondent.
[G.R. No. 164051/ October 3, 2012.]
PONENTE: Perez, J.
TOPIC: Trust Receipts
____________________________________________________________________________________
DOCTRINE:
____________________________________________________________________________________
FACTS: [PNB] extended a credit facility in the form of [a] Floor Stock Line (FSL) in the increased amount
of P30 Million to Lisam Enterprises, Inc. [LISAM], a family-owned and controlled corporation that
maintains a Current Account with petitioner PNB. Soriano is the chairman and president of LISAM, she is
also the authorized signatory in all LISAM's Transactions with [PNB].
On various dates, LISAM made several availments of the FSL in the total amount of (P29,645,944.55),
the proceeds of which were credited to its current account with [PNB]. For each availment, LISAM
through [Soriano], executed 52 Trust Receipts (TRs). In addition to the promissory notes, showing its
receipt of the items in trust with the duty to turn-over the proceeds of the sale thereof to [PNB].
Sometime on January 21-22, 1998, [PNB's] authorized personnel conducted an actual physical inventory
of LISAM's motor vehicles and motorcycles and found that only four (4) units covered by the TRs
amounting to P158,100.00 remained unsold.
P29,644,944.55 as the outstanding principal balance [of] the total availments on the line covered by TRs,
[LISAM] should have remitted to [PNB], P29,487,844.55. Despite several formal demands, respondent
Soriano failed and refused to turn over the said [amount to] the prejudice of [PNB].
Given the terms of the TRs which read, in pertinent part:
RECEIVED in Trust from the [PNB], Naga Branch, Naga City, Philippines, the motor vehicles
("Motor Vehicles") specified and described in the Invoice/s issued by HONDA PHILIPPINES, INC.
(HPI) to Lisam Enterprises, Inc., (the "Trustee") hereto attached as Annex "A" hereof, and in
consideration thereof, the trustee hereby agrees to hold the Motor Vehicles in storage as the
property of PNB, with the liberty to sell the same for cash for the Trustee's account and to deliver
the proceeds thereof to PNB to be applied against its acceptance on the Trustee's account. Under
the terms of the Invoices and (sic) the Trustee further agrees to hold the said vehicles and
proceeds of the sale thereof in Trust for the payment of said acceptance and of any [of] its other
indebtedness to PNB.
The Trustee's failure to account to PNB for the Motor Vehicles received in Trust and/or for the
proceeds of the sale thereof within thirty (30) days from demand made by PNB shall constitute
prima facie evidence that the Trustee has converted or misappropriated said vehicles and/or
proceeds thereof for its benefit to the detriment and prejudice of PNB.
and Soriano's failure to account for the proceeds of the sale of the motor vehicles, PNB, as previously
adverted to, filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Naga City charging
Soriano with fifty two (52) counts of violation of the Trust Receipts Law, in relation to Article 315,
paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. The same office filed Informations against Soriano for fifty
two (52) counts of Estafa (violation of the Trust Receipts Law), docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2001-
0641 to 2001-0693, which were raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Naga City.
Meanwhile, PNB filed a petition for review of the Naga City Prosecutor's Resolution before the Secretary
of the DOJ. In January 2002, the RTC ordered the dismissal of one of the criminal cases against Soriano,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 2001-0671. In March of the same year, Soriano was arraigned in, and
pled not guilty to, the rest of the criminal cases. Thereafter, on 16 October 2002, the RTC issued an
Order resetting the continuation of the pre-trial on 27 November 2002.
____________________________________________________________________________________
DLSU COLLEGE OF LAW | COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW | G01 | SY 2016-2017
ISSUE/S: whether the restructuring of LISAM's loan account extinguished Soriano's criminal liability.
____________________________________________________________________________________
RULING: PNB admits that although it had approved LISAM's restructuring proposal, the actual
restructuring of LISAM's account consisting of several credit lines was never reduced into writing. PNB
argues that the stipulations therein such as the provisions on the schedule of payment of the principal
obligation, interests, and penalties, must be in writing to be valid and binding between the parties. PNB
further postulates that assuming the restructuring was reduced into writing, LISAM failed to comply with
the conditions precedent for its effectivity, specifically, the payment of interest and other charges, and the
submission of the titles to the real properties in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. On the whole, PNB is
adamant that the events concerning the restructuring of LISAM's loan did not affect the TR security, thus,
Soriano's criminal liability thereunder subsists.
On the other hand, the appellate court agreed with the ruling of the DOJ Secretary that the approval of
LISAM's restructuring proposal, even if not reduced into writing, changed the status of LISAM's loan from
being secured with Trust Receipts (TR's) to one of an ordinary loan, non-payment of which does not give
rise to criminal liability. The Court of Appeals declared that there was no breach of trust constitutive of
estafa through misappropriation or conversion where the relationship between the parties is simply that of
creditor and debtor, not as entruster and entrustee.
We cannot subscribe to the appellate court's reasoning. The DOJ Secretary's and the Court of Appeals
holding that, the supposed restructuring novated the loan agreement between the parties is myopic. To
begin with, the purported restructuring of the loan agreement did not constitute novation.
In this case, without a written contract stating in unequivocal terms that the parties were novating the
original loan agreement, thus undoubtedly eliminating an express novation, we look to whether there is an
incompatibility between the Floor Stock Line secured by TR's and the subsequent restructured Omnibus
Line which was supposedly approved by PNB. Soriano is confident with her assertion that PNB's
approval of her proposal to restructure LISAM's loan novated the loan agreement secured by TR's.
here is no showing that the waiver extinguished Soriano's obligation to "sell the [merchandise] for cash for
[LISAM's] account and to deliver the proceeds thereof to PNB to be applied against its acceptance on
[LISAM's] account." Soriano further agreed to hold the "vehicles and proceeds of the sale thereof in Trust
for the payment of said acceptance and of any of its other indebtedness to PNB." Well-settled is the rule
that, with respect to obligations to pay a sum of money, the obligation is not novated by an instrument that
expressly recognizes the old, changes only the terms of payment, adds other obligations not incompatible
with the old ones, or the new contract merely supplements the old one.Besides, novation does not
extinguish criminal liability.It stands to reason therefore, that Soriano's criminal liability under the TR's
subsists considering that the civil obligations under the Floor Stock Line secured by TR's were not
extinguished by the purported restructured Omnibus Line.
____________________________________________________________________________________
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 76243 finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of Justice is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Resolution of the Secretary of Justice dated 25 June 2002, directing the City Prosecutor of Naga City
to move for the withdrawal of the Informations for estafa in relation to the Trust Receipts Law against
respondent Lilian S. Soriano, and his 29 October 2002 Resolution, denying petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion;
and the Resolution of the Naga City Prosecutor's Office dated 19 March 2001, finding probable cause
against herein respondent, is REINSTATED. Consequently, the Orders of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 21 of Naga City in Criminal Cases Nos. 2001-0641 to 2001-0693, except Criminal Case No. 2001-
0671, dated 27 November 2002, 21 February 2003 and 15 July 2003 are SET ASIDE and its Order of 16
October 2002 resetting the continuation of the pre-trial is REINSTATED. The RTC is further ordered to
conduct the pre-trial with dispatch. SO ORDERED.

03 PNB Vs Soriano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

03 PNB Vs Soriano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

03 PNB Vs Soriano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DLSU COLLEGE OF LAW | COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW | G01 | SY 2016-2017

CASE NO. 3 (MENDOZA)

Given the terms of the TRs which read, in pertinent part:

You might also like