Search
Download 1 of 6
Gosiaco vs Ching
! Jaime Gosiaco, as an investmednt, granted a loan to ASB Holdings
for a period of 48 days wi th a 10.5% interest or 112,000
! ASB issued 2 checks to cover the loan and the interest drawn
against DBS Bank Makati
! Gosiaco went to DBS San Juan branch to deposit the checks upon
maturity but they were DISHONORED due to a STOP PAYMENT
ORDER and INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS
! Gosiaco informed ASB 2x about the dishonor and DEMANDED
REPLACEMENT CHECKS or RETURN OF THE MONEY but to no avai l
- hence a complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed with MTC
San Juan
! Ching was arraigned but Casta remained at large
! Ching:
- denied liability, mere employee of ASB
- no knowledge how much money ASB had in the banks
- responsibility to check how much was with othe r dept
! Gosiaco moved to implead ASB and i ts President Roxas but was
denied because case had already been submitted for final decision
! MTC: Ching ACQUITTED of criminal liability but NOT ABSOLVED from
civil liability
- as a corporate officer of ASB, she is CIVILLY LIABLE SINCE
SHE WAS A SIGNATORY TO THE CHECKS
! both parties appealed ot the RTC
- Gosiaco: MTC failed to hold ASB and Rox as jointly or
severally liable with Ching
- Ching: no civil liability because they were contractual
obligations of ASB
! RTC: CHING NO CIVIL LIABILITY (obligation fell squarely on ASB), but
still DENIED the motion to implead ASB and Roxas
! Gosiaco appeal to CA: RTC ERRED IN ABSOLVING CHING and
upholding to not implead ASB and Roxas and in refusing to pierce
the corporate veil of ASB and hold Roxas liable
! CA: RTC DECISION AFFIRMED
! -however, records clearly show that ASB is civil ly obligated to
petitioner
! -Gosiaco has been proceeding from the premise that he is unable to
file a separate civil action against ASB to recover amounts- which is
why he's been trying to implead ASB as a defendant in the BP 22
case, even if the case is criminal in nature
- -anchored on Rule 111, Section 1—Institution of criminal
and civil action
! -
! (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall
be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation
to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
! Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount
of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed. Where the complainant or information also seeks
to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary
damages, the offended party shall pay the fi ling fees based on the
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any
of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing
fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on
the judgment.
! -COURT DISAGREES. Nowhere in B.P. Blg. 22 is it provided that a
juridical person may be impleaded as an accused or defendant in
the prosecution for violations of that law, even in the litigation of
the civil aspect thereof
- -statutory construction: penal laws strictly construed in
favor of the accused
! -HOWEVER, Gosiaco can't be prevented from recovering amounts
due and demandable to him.
! -rules of procedure can't defeat a substantive right
! -but technically, nothing in Section 1(b) of Rule 111 prohibits the
RESERVATION OF A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE
JURIDICAL PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF THE CHECK WAS ISSUED
! -also, if the employee has no sufficient funds to cover the debt, the
corporation can't be held subsidiarily liable
- -the Revised Penal Code imposes subsidiary civil liability to
corporations for criminal acts engaged in by their
employees in the discharge of their duties, said subsidiary
liability applies only to felonies, and not to crimes penalized
by special laws such as B.P. Blg. 22
- -nothing in B.P. Blg. 22 imposes such subsidiary lia bility to
the corporation in whose name the check is actually issued
! -Clearly then, should the check signatory be unable to pay the
obligation incurred by the corporation, the complainant would be
bereft of remedy unless the right of action to collect on the liability
of the corporation is recognized
! -concerns:
- -double recovery: BP 22 case sa the em ployee and civil case
sa corp
!
-best we refer the matter to the Committee on
Rules for the formulation of proper guidelines to
prevent that possibility
- -payment of filing fees i n both the B.P. Blg. 22 case and the
civil action against the corporation
!
-we see no evil or cause for distress if the plaintiff
were made to pay filing fees based on the amount
of the check in both the B.P. Blg. 22 case and the
civil action
!
-the plaintiff therein made the deliberate option to
file two separate cases, even if the recovery of the
amounts of the check against the corporation could
evidently be pursued through the civil action alone.
!
-but in this case, CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS
LEGAL CONFUSION ON WON HE WAS AUTHORIZED
TO FILED THE CIVIL CASE AGAINST ASB, GOSIACO
SHOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM PAYING THE FILING
FEES BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECKS IF HE
FILES A CASE AGAINST ASB
!
-he shouldn't be barred by prescription either-- to
run from the date of finality of this decision
Related Interests
Lawsuit Prosecutor Bp
Documents Similar To Gosiaco vs Ching
DURA LEX SED LEX & Davao Oriental Digest
LEGISLATIVE INTEN…
Cases (summary/case
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY
Lenie Caga…
digest) Naomi Corpuz
More From kimuchos
Daclag vs Macahilig All I ask of You
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY
kimuchos kimuchos
ABOUT
About Scribd
Press
Our blog
Join our team!
Contact Us
Invite Friends
Gifts
Copyright © 2018 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Site Directory . Site Language: English
Search document
- amount to be recovered was a loan to ASB AND NOT TO
CHING
- Roxas testimony: checks issued by Ching were for and in
behalf of ASB
- -ASB CANNOT BE IMPLEADED IN A BP 22 CASE SINCE IT'S
NOT A NATURAL PERSON
- -Roxas under PI
- -no need to pierce corp veil since no requisites were
present
! -appeal to SC via rule 45
- -WON a corporate officer who signed a bouncing check is
civilly liable under BP 22
- -WON ASB can be impleaded in a BP 22 case
- -WON there's a basis to pierce the corporate veil of ASB
! Held: DENIED, without prejudice to the right of petitioner Jaime U.
Gosiaco to pursue an independent civil action against ASB Holdings
Inc. for the amount of the subject checks
! -BP 22, Section 1 says:
- -Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or
entity, the person or persons, who actually signed the check
in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
! -punishes the act of making and i ssuing bouncing checks. It is the
act itself of issuing the checks which is considered malum
prohibitum, covers all types of checks.
! -a corporate officer who issues a worthless check in the corporate
name he may be held personally liable and he cannot shield himself
from liability from his own acts on the ground that it was a
corporate act and not his personal act
! -HOWEVER, THE GENERAL RULE IS: a corporate officer who issues a
bouncing corporate check can only be held civilly liable when he is
convicted
! -Bautista v. Auto Plus Traders Inc: civil liability of a corporate officer
in a B.P. Blg. 22 case is extinguished with the criminal liability
! -hence, by principle of stare decisis, we follow this precedent and
AFFIRM THE DISCHARGE OF CHING OF ANY CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING
FROM THE BP 22 CASE FILED AGAINST HER, ON ACCOUNT OF HER
ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CHARGE
! -WHAT THE RULES PROHIBIT IS THE RESERVATION OF A SEPARATE
CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE NATURAL PERSON CHARGED WITH THE
BP 22 VIOLATION, including such corporate officer who had signed
the bounced check
! -B.P. Blg. 22 imposes a distinct civil liability on the signatory of the
check which is distinct from the civil liability of the corporation for
the amount represented from the check.
- -The civil liability attaching to the signatory arises from the
wrongful act of signing the check despite the insufficiency of
funds in the account, while the civil liability attaching to the
corporation is itself the very obligation covered by the
check or the consideration for its execution.
- -Yet these civil liabilities are mistaken to be indistinct. The
confusion is traceable to the singularity of the amount of
each.
! -BP 22 itself fused this criminal liability of the signer of the check in
behalf of the corp with the corresponding civil liability of the corp
itself BY ALLOWING THE COMPLAINANT TO RECOVER SUCH CIVIL
LIABILITY NOT FROM THE CORP BUT FROM THE PERSON WHO
SIGNED THE CHECK
! -the civil action that is impliedly instituted in the B.P. Blg. 22 action
is only the civil liability of the signatory, and not that of the
corporation itself, the distinctness of the cause of action against the
signatory and that against the corporation is rendered beyond
dispute
! -prior to the ROC amendments: it was permissible to pursue
criminal liability against the signatory while going after the
corporation itself for the civil liability
! -In the B.P. Blg. 22 case: what the trial court should determine
whether or not the signatory had signed the check with knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds or credit in the bank account,
! -in the civil case: The trial court should ascertain whether or not the
obligation itself
! is valid and demandable.
! -The litigation of both questions could, in theory, proceed
independently and simultaneously without being ultimately
conclusive on one or the other.
! -Let a copy of this Decision be REFERRED to the Committee on
Revision of the Rules for the formulation of the formal rules of
procedure to govern the civil action for the recovery of the amount
covered by the check against the juridical person which issued it.
KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI vs. Villarosa and Torr es-Ty
! Katrina's aunt, Rosemary Torres Ty-Rasekhi, sister of her late fathe r
Alexander Torres Ty filed for the issuance of letters of admin for the
estate of Katrina's grandmother, Bella Torres before RTC Pasig
! Katrina opposed but both parties l ater had a compromise
agreement which the RTC later approved
! Peter Torres Ty (Peter) and Catherine Torres Ty-Chavez (Catherine),
Rosemary's siblings, filed with the CA a petition to annul judgment
approving the compromise agreement
o that they also biological children of Bella and that they were
also entitled to inherit from her
o that no agreement was reached when they were first trying
to settle the estate amongst them
o that Rosemary wanted to get a bigger share
o that they were not aware that Rosemary filed a petition for
the issuance of letters of admin and that a CA was approved
by Pasig RTC
o that Rosemary's petition and CA did not disclose that Peter,
Catherine and Fannie were also Bella's heirs
! Katrina and Rosemary answered
o that the 3 siblings were purchased from third persons who
represented to Bella and the latter’s common -law husband,
Alejandro Ty, that they were abandoned children
o that this was known within the family circle, but was not
disclosed to the 3
o that Alejandro and Bella did not legally adopt them; hence,
they were never conferred the rights of legitimate children
! while the action for annulment was pending before the CA, Fannie
filed a complaint for falsification and perjury against petitioner and
Rosemary
Legal Liability Cheque
CIVPRODigest 01 Romualdez vs
Jurisdiction Rule3 COMELEC
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY
Francisco M… Luara Jean …
Tax Stuff and Things
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY
kimuchos kimuchos
SUPPORT LEGAL
Help / FAQ Terms
Accessibility Privacy
Purchase help Copyright
AdChoices
Publishers