Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    Metrobank Vs Tonda

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 33LIOv6L
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Tonda were liable for estafa despite depositing funds with Metrobank. Compensation is not allowed when one of the debts arises from a criminal offense, as the civil liability from such an offense must be satisfied. Any compromise over civil liability does not terminate criminal proceedings. The deposit did not settle the Spouses Tonda's trust receipt obligations and could not extinguish criminal culpability. Their failure to deliver sale proceeds or goods as required constituted the criminal offense of estafa, regardless of intent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Metrobank Vs Tonda

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 33LIOv6L
    62 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Tonda were liable for estafa despite depositing funds with Metrobank. Compensation is not allowed when one of the debts arises from a criminal offense, as the civil liability from such an offense must be satisfied. Any compromise over civil liability does not terminate criminal proceedings. The deposit did not settle the Spouses Tonda's trust receipt obligations and could not extinguish criminal culpability. Their failure to deliver sale proceeds or goods as required constituted the criminal offense of estafa, regardless of intent.

    Original Description:

    f

    Original Title

    Metrobank vs Tonda

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Tonda were liable for estafa despite depositing funds with Metrobank. Compensation is not allowed when one of the debts arises from a criminal offense, as the civil liability from such an offense must be satisfied. Any compromise over civil liability does not terminate criminal proceedings. The deposit did not settle the Spouses Tonda's trust receipt obligations and could not extinguish criminal culpability. Their failure to deliver sale proceeds or goods as required constituted the criminal offense of estafa, regardless of intent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views2 pages

    Metrobank Vs Tonda

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 33LIOv6L
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Tonda were liable for estafa despite depositing funds with Metrobank. Compensation is not allowed when one of the debts arises from a criminal offense, as the civil liability from such an offense must be satisfied. Any compromise over civil liability does not terminate criminal proceedings. The deposit did not settle the Spouses Tonda's trust receipt obligations and could not extinguish criminal culpability. Their failure to deliver sale proceeds or goods as required constituted the criminal offense of estafa, regardless of intent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Metrobank vs Tonda

    Any compromise relating to the civil liability arising from PD 115 does
    not

    automatically

    terminate

    the

    criminal

    proceeding

    against

    or

    extinguish the criminal liability of the malefactor.


    Facts: Spouses Joaquin G. Tonda and Ma. Cristina U. Tonda, hereinafter referred to as the
    TONDA, applied for and were granted commercial letters of credit by petitioner Metropolitan
    Bank and Trust Company, hereinafter referred to as METROBANK for a period of eight (8)
    months beginning June 14, 1990 to February 1, 1991 in connection with the importation of
    raw textile materials to be used in the manufacturing of garments. The TONDA acting both
    in their capacity as officers of Honey Tree Apparel Corporation (HTAC) and in their personal
    capacities, executed eleven (11) trust receipts to secure the release of the raw materials to
    HTAC. The imported fabrics with a principal value of P2,803,000.00 were withdrawn by
    HTAC under the 11 trust receipts executed by the TONDA. Due to their failure to settle their
    obligations under the trust receipts upon maturity, METROBANK through counsel, sent a
    letter dated August 10, 1992, making its final demand upon the TONDA to settle their past
    due TR/LC accounts on or before August 15, 1992. They were informed that by said date,
    the obligations would amount to P4,870,499.13. Despite repeated demands therefor, the
    TONDA failed to comply with their obligations stated in the trust receipts agreements, i.e.
    the TONDA failed to account to METROBANK the goods and/or proceeds of sale of the
    merchandise, subject of the trust receipts. The RTC convicted the spouses. However, the
    Court of Appeals citing the case of Tan Tiong Tick vs. American Apothecaries implied that in
    making the deposit, the TONDA are entitled to set off, by way of compensation, their
    obligations to METROBANK on their trust receipt liability.
    Issue: Whether or not the Spouses Tonda are liable for Estafa notwithstanding that the
    Held: Compensation is not proper when one of the debts consists in civil liability arising
    from a penal offense, the raison detre for this being that if one of the debts consists in civil
    liability arising from a penal offense, compensation would be improper and inadvisable
    because the satisfaction of such obligation is imperative.The handwritten note by the
    METROBANK officer acknowledging receipt of the checks amounting to P2.8 Million made
    no reference to the TONDA trust receipt obligations, and we cannot presume that it was
    anything more than an ordinary bank deposit. The Court of Appeals citing the case of Tan
    Tiong Tick vs. American Apothecaries implied that in making the deposit, the TONDA are

    entitled to set off, by way of compensation, their obligations to METROBANK. However,


    Article 1288 of the Civil Code provides that compensation shall not be proper when one of
    the debts consists in civil liability arising from a penal offense as in the case at bar. The
    raison detre for this is that, if one of the debts consists in civil liability arising from a penal
    offense, compensation would be improper and inadvisable because the satisfaction of such
    obligation is imperative.
    Any compromise relating to the civil liability arising from an offense does not automatically
    terminate the criminal proceeding against or extinguish the criminal liability of the
    malefactor. Reliance on the negotiations for the settlement of the trust receipts obligations
    between the TONDA and METROBANK is simply misplaced. The negotiations pertain and
    affect only the civil aspect of the case but does not preclude prosecution for the offense
    already committed. It has been held that [a]ny compromise relating to the civil liability
    arising from an offense does not automatically terminate the criminal proceeding against or
    extinguish the criminal liability of the malefactor. All told, the P2.8 Million deposit could not
    be considered as having settled the trust receipts obligations of the TONDA to the end of
    extinguishing any incipient criminal culpability arising therefrom.
    The mere failure to deliver the proceeds of the sale or the goods if not sold, constitutes a
    criminal offense that causes prejudice not only to another, but more to the public interest.
    The finding that there was no fraud and deceit is likewise misplaced considering that the
    offense is punished as a malum prohibitum regardless of the existence of intent or malice. A
    mere failure to deliver the proceeds of the sale or the goods if not sold, constitutes a
    criminal offense that causes prejudice not only to another, but more to the public interest.

    You might also like