Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Ng was granted a credit line of P3M by Asiatrust, for him to utilize in fabricating communication towers ordered
by his clients. Along with the Credit Line Agreement, he signed a Trust Receipt Agreement, which had no maturity
dates as they were left blank. Due to difficulties in collecting from his clients, he defaulted to pay his loan with
Asiatrust. An information for estafa was filed against Ng. The Court ruled that agreement was a simple loan, as it
Summary
was clear that goods were never intended for sale but for use in fabrication of steel communication towers . Also,
assuming arguendo that they it is a TR, as per Agreement, he was only obligated to turn over proceeds as soon as he
received payment. And since, there was no maturity date, obligation will only mature upon Asiatrust's demand,
which it never did, thus there was no misappropriation.
Credit Line Agreement of P3M: between Ng, then engaged in business of building and fabricating
communication towers under trade name "Capitol Balcksmith and Builders," and Asiatrust.
Trust Receipt Agreement: was signed by Ng as required, along with Promissory Notes (PN). The PNs matured
on September 18, 1997; however, maturity dates for Trust Receipts (TR) were left unfilled or blank by the bank.
Utilization of goods (of chemicals and metal plates from suppliers): used by Ng to fabricate communication
towers ordered from him by his clients (Islacom, Smart, Infocom) and installed in Leyte, Davao and Tongonan.
Default of payment: As Ng realized difficulty in collecting from his client, Islacom, he failed to pay his loan.
Surprise ocular inspection: by Asiatrust's representative appraiser, Linga, who found that 97% of subject goods
of TR were "sold-out and that only 3% of goods pertaining to PN remained." Loan was restructured but Ng still
failed to pay.
Information for Estafa: was filed against Ng, under Art. 315(b), RPC in relation to Sec. 3, PD 115 (TR Law ),
alleging that, Ng entered into TR agreement with Ma. Girlie Bernardez 1 whereby Ng as entrustee received in trust
various chemicals in total sum of P4.5M with obligation to hold said chemicals in trust as property of entruster
with right to sell the samme for cash and to remit proceeds to the entruster; however, he misappropriated,
Facts misapplied and converted said amount to his own personal use and benefit; and despite repeated demands,
failed and still refused to pay, to the prejudice of complainant in amount of P2,971,650.
Compromise Agreement: where Ng was to issue 6 post-dated checks. Ng, in good faith, tried to comply by
issuing 2-3 PDCs, in total sum of P1.8M. The remaining checks were not deposited as CA did not push through.
Petitioner's defense:
Loan was granted as his working cpaital and that TR Agreements signed were merely preconditions for
grant and approval of his loan. Also, both Letter of Credit and TRA were contracts of adhesion. Lastly, he
already paid P1.8M out of P2.971M he owed as per Statement of Account dated January 26, 2000.
Court Ruling:
RTC: guilty of Estafa; Even if TRA is a contract of adhesion, Ng is presumed to have read and understood its
terms, thus, bound by its provisions.
CA: RTC affirmed; WON Ng acted without malice or fraud, offense punished is malum prohibitum; mere failure
to deliver proceeds of sale or goods if not sold constitutes the criminal offense. | MR: denied. | Hence, this petition.
Ratio/Issues I. Main issue: WON petitioner is liable for estafa. (NO)
Elements of estafa are not present. [SEE ISSUES BELOW]
(1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return it;
(2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of
such receipt;
1 later on Amended Information to change complainant as Bernaldez is just an employee of Asiatrust. (I assume, change to Asiatrust, as the offended
party, since it was not expressly mentioned in case).
(3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
(4) there is demand by the offended party to the offender.