David Levy M.

Agcaoili
Credit Transactions
14 cases
G.R. No. L-18535

August 15, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, vs. VENANCIO CONCEPCION

Section 29 of Act No. 2938 contemplates that no loan shall ever be made to any officer o the bank
until such time as it is submitted to, and approved by, the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors,
excluding the applicant for the loan. But, here, the loan was consummated and the transaction was
completed several days before it was ever brought to the knowledge or attention of the directors,
and, even assuming that they did ratify a loan of that character, it would not constitute a defense.
The law was violated in the making and consummation of the loan without the knowledge or consent
of the Board of Directors. If the Binalbagan Estate had applied to the defendant, as President of the
Bank, for the loan in question, and if, upon its receipt, he had submitted the application to the Board
of Directors recommending the loan, and acting upon his advice the Board had approved the loan,
and the loan had been made after such approval by the board, another and different question would
have been presented, and there would have been merit in such a defense, but that is not this case.

G.R. No. 149193

April 4, 2011

RICARDO B. BANGAYAN vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION AND PHILIP

SARIA
Rules of Discovery
The Court finds that petitioner Bangayans argument as regards the banks purported failure to
comply with the rules of discovery is not substantive enough to warrant further discussion by this
Court. Petitioner has not alleged any different outcome that would be generated if we were to agree
with him on this point. If petitioner is unsatisfied with respondent RCBCs responses, then his
remedy is to expose the falsity (if any) of the banks responses in the various modes of discovery
during the trial proper. He could have confronted respondent with contradictory statements,
testimonies or other countervailing evidence. The Court affirms the findings of the appellate court
that the rules of discovery were not treated lightly by respondent RCBC. 144
1avvphi1

In summary, petitioner Bangayan failed to establish that the dishonor of the seven checks by
respondent RCBC entitled him to damages, since the dishonor arose from his own voluntary
agreement to act as surety for the four corporations letters of credit. There was no bad faith or
malice on the part of respondent bank, as it merely acted within its rights as a creditor under the
Surety Agreement.

G.R. No. 157594

March 9, 2010

TOSHIBA INFORMATION EQUIPMENT (PHILS.), INC.,

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Jurisprudence has consistently shown that this Court accords the findings of fact by the CTA with the
highest respect. In Sea-Land Service Inc. v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 122605, 30 April 2001, 357
SCRA 441, 445-446], this Court recognizes that the Court of Tax Appeals, which by the very nature
of its function is dedicated exclusively to the consideration of tax problems, has necessarily
developed an expertise on the subject, and its conclusions will not be overturned unless there has
been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority. Such findings can only be disturbed on appeal if
they are not supported by substantial evidence or there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the
part of the Tax Court. In the absence of any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, this Court
must presume that the CTA rendered a decision which is valid in every respect.
CTA; judicial admissions. An admission made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties is
considered a judicial admission and, under the Rules of Court, requires no proof. Such admission
may be controverted only by a showing that it was made through a palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made

G.R. No. 164538

August 9, 2010

METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner,

vs.
ROGELIO REYNADO and JOSE C. ADRANDEA,
Novation not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability for estafa; Criminal liability for estafa not
affected by compromise or novation of contract.
In a catena of cases, it was ruled that criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a compromise or
novation of contract. In Firaza v. People35 and Recuerdo v. People,36 this Court ruled that in a crime
of estafa, reimbursement or belated payment to the offended party of the money swindled by the
accused does not extinguish the criminal liability of the latter. We also held in People v. Moreno 37 and
in People v. Ladera38 that "criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of
contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the Government on its
own motion even though complete reparation should have been made of the damage suffered by the

offended party." Similarly in the case of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tonda39 cited by
petitioner, we held that in a crime of estafa, reimbursement of or compromise as to the amount
misappropriated, after the commission of the crime, affects only the civil liability of the offender, and
not his criminal liability.

G.R. No. 167567

September 22, 2010

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, vs

BARTOLOME PUZON, JR.,
The CA found that the postdated checks were issued by Puzon merely as a security for the payment
of his purchases and that these were not intended to be encashed. It thus concluded that SMC did
not acquire ownership of the checks as it was duty bound to return the same checks to Puzon after
the transactions covering them were settled. The CA agreed with the prosecutor that there was no
theft, considering that a person cannot be charged with theft for taking personal property that
belongs to himself.

G.R. No. 168266

March 15, 2010

CARGILL, INC., vs. INTRA STRATA ASSURANCE CORPORATION,

Furthermore, a review of the records shows that the trial court was correct in holding that the
advance payment of $500,000 was released to NMC in accordance with the conditions provided
under the "red clause" Letter of Credit from which said amount was drawn. The Head of the
International Operations Department of the Bank of Philippine Islands testified that the bank would
not have paid the beneficiary if the required documents were not complete. It is a requisite in a
documentary credit transaction that the documents should conform to the terms and conditions of
the letter of credit; otherwise, the bank will not pay.

G.R. No. 179395

December 15, 2010

MAXWELL HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

ERIC UYCHIAOCO YU

The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person who has no interest in
the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.

G.R. No. 179448

June 26, 2013

CARLOS L. TANENGGEE,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Commercial documents are, in general, documents or instruments which are "used by merchants or
businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions." 34 Promissory notes facilitate credit
transactions while a check is a means of payment used in business in lieu of money for convenience
in business transactions. A cashiers check necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the
person whose name and signature appear thereon to encash the check and withdraw the amount
indicated therein.

G.R. No. 182364

August 3, 2010

AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC.,

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Sales invoices are recognized commercial documents to facilitate trade or credit transactions. They
are proofs that a business transaction has been concluded, hence, should not be considered bereft
of probative value.9 Only the preponderance of evidence threshold as applied in ordinary civil cases
is needed to substantiate a claim for tax refund proper

G.R. No. 186063

January 15, 2014

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,

vs
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

By definition, a letter of credit is a written instrument whereby the writer requests or authorizes the
addressee to pay money or deliver goods to a third person and assumes responsibility for payment
of debt therefor to the addressee. A letter of credit, however, changes its nature as different
transactions occur and if carried through to completion ends up as a binding contract between the
issuing and honoring banks without any regard or relation to the underlying contract or disputes
between the parties thereto.

G.R. No. 187919

February 20, 2013

RAFAEL H. GALVEZ, and KATHERINE L. GUY,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ASIA UNITED BANK

Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned herein below x x x:
x x x x2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed
prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means
of other similar deceits.

G.R. No. 188165

December 11, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

vs.
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION & THIRD DIVISION, HERNANDO BENITO PEREZ,
ROSARIO PEREZ, RAMON ARCEO and ERNEST ESCALER,
x-------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 189063
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
vs.
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, SECOND DIVISION, HERNANDO BENITO PEREZ, ROSARIO
SALVADOR PEREZ, ERNEST DE LEON ESCALER and RAMON CASTILLO ARCEO, JR.,

"It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. Neither was it
a transactionbecause this term must be construed as analogous to the terms which precedes it. A
transaction like a contract, is one which involves some consideration as in credit
transactions and this element (consideration) is absent in the investigation conducted by the
petitioner." (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, applying the above construction of the Supreme Court in the case at bench, the Court believes
and so holds that the alleged desistance of accused Hernando B. Perez "from pressuring Mark
Jimenez to execute affidavits implicating target personalities involved in the plunder case against
former President Joseph Erap Estrada and in connection with the pending application of Mark
Jimenez for admission into the WPP of the government", cannot, by any stretch of the imagination,
be considered as"contract" or "transaction" as defined within the ambit of the fourth element of the
offense under Section 3(b) of RA 3019 because no "monetary consideration" as in credit transaction
is involved.

G.R. No. 199481

December 3, 2012

ILDEFONSO S. CRISOLOGO,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

Settled is the rule that in civil cases, the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue has the onus to
prove his assertion in order to obtain a favorable judgment. Thus, the burden rests on the debtor to
prove payment rather than on the creditor to prove non-payment.
G.R. No. 171379

January 10, 2011

JOSE MARQUES and MAXILITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

vs.
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, FAR EAST BANK INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., and
MAKATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 171419
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY and MAKATI INSURANCE COMPANY,
vs.
JOSE MARQUES and MAXILITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Article 1431 of the Civil Code defines estoppel as follows:
Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person
making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.