Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO and APOLONIA P.

CATIBAYAN, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and SIMON ARGUELLES, respondents.
176 SCRA 591

Breach of obligation is separate and distinct from any criminal liability for
misuse and/or misappropriation of goods or proceeds realized from the sale
of goods, documents or instruments released under trust receipts,
punishable under Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law (P.D. 115)

Facts: Gregorio Limpin, Jr. and Antonio Apostol, doing business under the
name and style of Davao Libra Industrial Sales, filed an application for an
Irrevocable Domestic Letter of Credit with the plaintiff Bank for the amount of
P495,000.00 in favor of LS Parts Hardware and Machine Shop (herein after
referred to as LS Parts) for the purchase of assorted scrap irons. Said
application was signed by defendant Limpin and Apostol. The aforesaid
application was approved, and plaintiff Bank issued Domestic Letter of Credit
No. DLC No. DVO-78-006 in favor of LS Parts for P495,000.00. Thereafter, a
Trust Receipt dated September 6, 1978, was executed by defendant Limpin
and Antonio Apostol (Exh. C). In said Trust Receipt, the following stipulation,
signed by defendant Lorenzo Sarmiento, Jr. The defendants failed to comply
with their undertaking under the Trust Receipt. The defendants claim that
they cannot be held liable as the 825 tons of assorted scrap iron, subject of
the trust receipt agreement, were lost when the vessel transporting them
sunk, and that said scrap iron were delivered to Davao Libra Industrial
Sales, a business concern over which they had no interest whatsoever.
Issue: Whether or not Sarmiento is liable nowithstanding the loss of the scrap
iron
Held: Yes In the present case, private respondents complaint against
petitioners was based on the failure of the latter to comply with their
obligation as spelled out in the Trust Receipt executed bythem.This breach of
obligation is separate and distinct from any criminal liability for misuse
and/or misappropriation of goods or proceeds realized from the sale of
goods, documents or instruments released under trust receipts, punishable
under Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law (P.D. 115) in relation to Article
315(1), (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Being based on an obligation ex
contractu and not ex delicto, the civil action may proceed independently of
the criminal proceedings instituted against petitioners regardless of the
result of the latter

GAUDENCIO T. MENDOZA, plaintiff-appellant,


vs.
MAXIMO M. ALCALA, defendant-appellee
G.R. No. L-14305
August 29, 1961

FACTS:
According to sales receipt, Alcala sold 100 kaban of palay for 1,100.
However, there was no consideration received by Mendoza. Mendoza filled
estafa case on Alcala but the court acquitted Alcala due to the fact that he
was not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt because of the impossibility of
deception in this case as Mendoza is Alcalas neighbor. He should have
known that Alcala cannot give him palay as he had no lands and should have
seen whether Alcalas sisters bodega had palay. It appeared that there was
no misrepresentation or deceit as the receipt was not what it purports to be.
Nonetheless, Mendoza filed a separate civil case against Alcala.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the civil case prosper?
HELD:
Yes. Acquittal for the criminal liability due the fact that the defendant was
not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt doesnt constitute a bar to a
subsequent civil action involving the same subject matter. According to
Article 29, such civil action only preponderance of evidence. In fact, Alcala
was ordered by the court to pay 1,100 to Mendoza plus 300.00 litigation
fee.

Bernabe Castillo, et al.


vs.
The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.,
176 SCRA 591

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari where petitioners seek for the
renewal of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the dismissal of the Court
of First Instance of the complaint for damages filed by petitioners against the
respondents Juanito Rosario and Cresencia Rosario.
On May 2, 1965, petitioner Bernabe Castillo (in his own behalf, and in behalf
of Serapion Castillo who has since then become deceased, and Eulogio
Castillo, his minor child) and Generosa Galang Castillo figured in a vehicular
accident with private respondents Juanito Rosario and Cresencia Rosario at
Bagac, Villasis, Pangasinan causing injuries to their persons and damages to
their respective vehicles.The parties have their own version of what actually
happened on that fateful day. Each party is pointing to the negligence by the
other as the proximate cause of the accident.
While the case was pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the
Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan file an information dated September 29. 1965
against Juanito Rosario for double physical injuries, double less serious
physical injuries, and damage to property thru reckless imprudence in the
Court of First Instance of Urdaneta. Rosario was prosecuted and convicted in
the criminal case. Castillo then appealed to the Court of Appeals which
rendered a decision acquitting him from the crime charged on the ground
that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other
hand, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision on the basis of
the testimonies and evidence submitted by the petitioners as well as the
records of the case, dismissing the complain of the petitioners against
private respondents as well as the counterclaim of private respondents
against the petitioners. On January 24, 1973, petitioners appealed to the
Court of Appeals which then affirmed the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila as it found no negligence committed by Juanito Rosario to
warrant an award of damages to the petitioners. Hence, the present petition
for review on certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not the judgement of acquittal extinguishes civil liability
based on the same incident.

Ruling: Yes. Negligence, being the source and foundation of actions of quasidelict, is the basis for the recovery of damages. In the case at bar, the Court
of Appeals found that no negligence was committed by Juanito Rosario to
warrant an award of damages to the petitioners.The Court of Appeals'
findings that the collision was not due to the negligence of Juanito Rosario
but Bernabe Castillo's own act of driving was actually the proximate cause of
the collision. Civil liability on the ground that the alleged negligence did not
exist. Petition denied. No pronouncement as to costs.