Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

METROPOLITAN BANK v. JOAQUIN TONDA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 155647 2007-11-23	METROPOLITAN BANK v. JIMMY GO NACHURA, J.
As to the other obligations under the trust receipts adapted from Section 9 of the Trust Receipts Law, there is no sufficient evidence proffered by Metrobank that Jimmy and Benjamin Go had actually violated them. What the law punishes is the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of another, whether the latter is the owner.[41] The malum prohibitum nature of the offense notwithstanding, the intent to misuse or misappropriate the goods or their proceeds on the part of Jimmy and Benjamin Go should have been proved. Unfortunately, no such proof appears on record.[42]
	GR No. 163745 2007-08-24	FERNANDO GO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
On the matter of service, Section 1, Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, clearly states that in a petition filed originally in the Court of Appeals, the petitioner is required to serve a copy of the petition on the adverse party before its filing.[18] If the adverse party appears by counsel, service shall be made on such counsel pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13. Since the OSG represents the Republic of the Philippines once the case is brought before this Court or the Court of Appeals, then service of the petition should be made on that office.[19]
	GR NO. 164715 2006-09-20	ARNEL C. ALCARAZ v. RAMON C. GONZALEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
It bears stressing that in the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation, the executive branch of government has full discretionary authority. Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the private respondent is necessarily dependent on the sound discretion of the Investigating Prosecutor and ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice. Courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch.[24]
	GR NO. 152577 2005-09-21	REPUBLIC v. CRASUS L. IYOY
Furthermore, the general rule is that only the Solicitor General is authorized to bring or defend actions on behalf of the People or the Republic of the Philippines once the case is brought before this Court or the Court of Appeals.[36] While it is the prosecuting attorney or fiscal who actively participates, on behalf of the State, in a proceeding for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General takes over when the case is elevated to the Court of Appeals or this Court. Since it shall be eventually responsible for taking the case to the appellate courts when circumstances demand, then it is only reasonable and practical that even while the proceeding is still being held before the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General can already exercise supervision and control over the conduct of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal therein to better guarantee the protection of the interests of the State.
	GR No. 128120 2004-10-20	SWEDISH MATCH v. CA TINGA, J,
Granting arguendo, that the amount of US$36 million was a definite offer, it would remain as a mere offer in the absence of evidence of its acceptance. To produce a contract, there must be acceptance, which may be express or implied, but it must not qualify the terms of the offer.[47] The acceptance of an offer must be unqualified and absolute to perfect the contract.[48] In other words, it must be identical in all respects with that of the offer so as to produce consent or meeting of the minds.[49]
	GR No. 119858 2003-04-29	EDWARD C. ONG v. CA CARPIO, J.
SEC. 13. Penalty Clause. The failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three Hundred and Fifteen, Paragraph One (b), of Act Numbered Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense. (Emphasis supplied) The Trust Receipts Law is violated whenever the entrustee fails to: (1) turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, or (2) return the goods covered by the trust receipts if the goods are not sold.[18] The mere failure to account or return gives rise to the crime which is malum prohibitum.[19] There is no requirement to prove intent to defraud.[20]