Supreme Court: Recaredo Ma. Calvo For Appellant. Attorney-General Villa-Real For Appellee
Supreme Court: Recaredo Ma. Calvo For Appellant. Attorney-General Villa-Real For Appellee
Supreme Court: Recaredo Ma. Calvo For Appellant. Attorney-General Villa-Real For Appellee
L-19190
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
EN BANC
vs.
VENANCIO CONCEPCION, defendant-appellant.
MALCOLM, J.:
By telegrams and a letter of confirmation to the manager of the Aparri branch of the Philippine National Bank,
Venancio Concepcion, President of the Philippine National Bank, between April 10, 1919, and May 7, 1919,
authorized an extension of credit in favor of "Puno y Concepcion, S. en C." in the amount of P300,000. This special
authorization was essential in view of the memorandum order of President Concepcion dated May 17, 1918, limiting
the discretional power of the local manager at Aparri, Cagayan, to grant loans and discount negotiable documents to
P5,000, which, in certain cases, could be increased to P10,000. Pursuant to this authorization, credit aggregating
P300,000, was granted the firm of "Puno y Concepcion, S. en C.," the only security required consisting of six
demand notes. The notes, together with the interest, were taken up and paid by July 17, 1919.
"Puno y Concepcion, S. en C." was a copartnership capitalized at P100,000. Anacleto Concepcion contributed
P5,000; Clara Vda. de Concepcion, P5,000; Miguel S. Concepcion, P20,000; Clemente Puno, P20,000; and Rosario
San Agustin, "casada con Gral. Venancio Concepcion," P50,000. Member Miguel S. Concepcion was the
administrator of the company.
On the facts recounted, Venancio Concepcion, as President of the Philippine National Bank and as member of the
board of directors of this bank, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan with a violation of section 35
of Act No. 2747. He was found guilty by the Honorable Enrique V. Filamor, Judge of First Instance, and was
sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months, to pay a fine of P3,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and the costs.
Section 35 of Act No. 2747, effective on February 20, 1918, just mentioned, to which reference must hereafter
repeatedly be made, reads as follows: "The National Bank shall not, directly or indirectly, grant loans to any of the
members of the board of directors of the bank nor to agents of the branch banks." Section 49 of the same Act
provides: "Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Act shall be punished by a fine not to exceed
ten thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not to exceed five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment." These
two sections were in effect in 1919 when the alleged unlawful acts took place, but were repealed by Act No. 2938,
approved on January 30, 1921.
Counsel for the defense assign ten errors as having been committed by the trial court. These errors they have
argued adroitly and exhaustively in their printed brief, and again in oral argument. Attorney-General Villa-Real, in an
exceptionally accurate and comprehensive brief, answers the proposition of appellant one by one.
The question presented are reduced to their simplest elements in the opinion which follows:
I. Was the granting of a credit of P300,000 to the copartnership "Puno y Concepcion, S. en C." by Venancio
Concepcion, President of the Philippine National Bank, a "loan" within the meaning of section 35 of Act No. 2747?
Counsel argue that the documents of record do not prove that authority to make a loan was given, but only show the
concession of a credit. In this statement of fact, counsel is correct, for the exhibits in question speak of a "credito"
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1922/nov1922/gr_l-19190_1922.html 1/4