Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 296 views

    BDO Vs CHOA

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Choa could not be convicted of violating the Trust Receipts Law as the authorized representative of Camden Industries. While the Court found that Camden violated the law, Choa signed the trust receipt agreements as Camden's representative, not in his personal capacity. Additionally, the agreements did not contain any clause making Choa personally liable for Camden's debts in case of default. Therefore, without evidence that Choa personally guaranteed Camden's obligations, he could not be held civilly or criminally liable for the company's actions.

    Copyright:

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

    BDO Vs CHOA

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    296 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Choa could not be convicted of violating the Trust Receipts Law as the authorized representative of Camden Industries. While the Court found that Camden violated the law, Choa signed the trust receipt agreements as Camden's representative, not in his personal capacity. Additionally, the agreements did not contain any clause making Choa personally liable for Camden's debts in case of default. Therefore, without evidence that Choa personally guaranteed Camden's obligations, he could not be held civilly or criminally liable for the company's actions.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    BDO vs CHOA

    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 Antonio Choa could not be convicted of violating the Trust Receipts Law as the authorized representative of Camden Industries. While the Court found that Camden violated the law, Choa signed the trust receipt agreements as Camden's representative, not in his personal capacity. Additionally, the agreements did not contain any clause making Choa personally liable for Camden's debts in case of default. Therefore, without evidence that Choa personally guaranteed Camden's obligations, he could not be held civilly or criminally liable for the company's actions.

    Copyright:

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

    BDO Vs CHOA

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Choa could not be convicted of violating the Trust Receipts Law as the authorized representative of Camden Industries. While the Court found that Camden violated the law, Choa signed the trust receipt agreements as Camden's representative, not in his personal capacity. Additionally, the agreements did not contain any clause making Choa personally liable for Camden's debts in case of default. Therefore, without evidence that Choa personally guaranteed Camden's obligations, he could not be held civilly or criminally liable for the company's actions.

    Copyright:

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

    BDO Unibank, Inc. vs.

    Choa
    G.R. No. 237553, July 10, 2019
    Leonen, J.

    FACTS:
    Respondent Antonio Choa, the then president and general manager of
    Camden Industries, Inc. (Camden) was charged violating P.D. 115 or the Trust
    Receipts Law. Choa allegedly executed several Trust Receipt Agreements in favor
    of Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco De Oro-EPCI, Inc.), with the due sum of Php
    7,875,904.96. The terms of which the accused agreed to sell the same with
    express obligation to remit to the complainant bank proceeds of the sale and/or
    turn over the same if not sold or disposed of in accordance with the said Trust
    Receipt Agreements on demand, but the accused once in possession of the said
    good, far from complying with his obligation, Choa instead misappropriated the
    proceeds.

    From the trial it was shown that from another civil case, BDO owed Camden
    90 million Pesos as judgment award. It was also evidenced that Camden owed a
    money claim of 20 million Pesos to BDO. Upon filing of demurer of evidence,
    respondent argued that since the P20M plus being claimed by the bank is more
    than offset by the P90M plus judgment against the bank, there is no basis for the
    claim of violation of the Trust Receipts Law.

    The prosecution argued that such compensation is not allowed. It points out
    that since Choa’s civil liabilities stemmed from his criminal violations of the Trust
    Receipts Law, they could not be the subject of compensation.

    The RTC granted Choa’s demurrer and held that the amounts BDO and
    Camden owed each other may be legally compensated and BDO failed to prove
    Choa’s criminal intent in not paying or turning over the goods to which the CA
    affirmed.

    Petitioner submits to the Court the arguments that that there could be no
    legal compensation between the judgment debt in Camden's favor and
    respondent's civil liability arising from a criminal case, in ruling that respondent's
    obligation to petitioner was a mere loan, despite his liability for violating the Trust
    Receipts Law and in ignoring that respondent's violation of the Trust Receipts Law
    was malum prohibitum.

    Respondent argues that the prosecution failed to prove that he "was directly
    and personally responsible for the alleged violation of the Trust Receipts Law, and
    that the elements to consummate the violation of PD 115 were not present in this
    case.

    ISSUE: Whether or not respondent can be convicted of violating PD 115 as the


    authorized representative of Camden

    RULING:
    No.A Corporation being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors,
    officers, and employees. Debts incurred by these individuals, acting as such
    corporate agents, are not theirs but the direct liability of the corporation they
    represent. As an exception, directors or officers are personally liable for the
    corporation's debts only if they so contractually agree or stipulate.

    Here, although upon findings of the Court there really existed a violation of
    the Trust Receipts Law, the pieces of evidence showed that respondent signed the
    Trust Receipt Agreements, but not in his personal capacity. In all agreements,
    "Camden Inds." was handwritten as the name of the corporation, while
    respondent's signature appeared as the authorized signature. Clearly, respondent
    affixed his signature only as Camden's representative. Moreover, there was no
    guaranty clause or a similar clause on the page that he signed that would have
    made him personally liable in case of default of the company.

    Hence, without any evidence that respondent personally bound himself to


    the debts of the company he represented, this Court cannot hold him civilly liable
    under the Trust Receipt Agreements. The Petition is denied.

    You might also like