Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Narra Nickel Mining vs Redmont Ching v The Secretary of Justice G. R. No.

164317 February 6, 2006


G.R. No. 195580, January 28, 2015
The failure of person to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods
FACTS: Narra and its co-petitioner corporations Tesoro and MacArthur, filed covered by the trust receipt to the entruster or to return said goods, if
a motion before the SC to reconsider its April 21, 2014 Decision which upheld not sold, is a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal
the denial of their MPSA applications. The SC affirmed the CA ruling that there sanctions
is a doubt to their nationality, and that in applying the Grandfather Rule, the
finding is that MBMI, a 100% Canadian-owned corporation, effectively owns FACTS: Ching was the Senior Vice-President of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc.
60% of the common stocks of petitioners by owning equity interests of the (PBMI). Sometime in September to October 1980, PBMI, through petitioner,
petitioners other majority corporate shareholders. Narra, Tesoro and applied with the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (respondent bank) for
MacArthur argued that the application of the Grandfather Rule to determine the issuance of commercial letters of credit to finance its importation of
their nationality is erroneous and allegedly without basis in the Constitution, assorted goods. Under the receipts, petitioner agreed to hold the goods in trust
the FIA, the Philippine Mining Act, and the Rules issued by the SEC. These for the said bank, with authority to sell but not by way of conditional sale,
laws and rules supposedly espouse the application of the Control Test in pledge or otherwise; and in case such goods were sold, to turn over the
verifying the Philippine nationality of corporate entities for purposes of proceeds thereof as soon as received, to apply against the relative
determining compliance with Sec. 2, Art. XII of the Constitution that only acceptances and payment of other indebtedness to respondent bank. In case
corporations or associations at least 60% of whose capital is owned by such the goods remained unsold within the specified period, the goods were to be
Filipino citizens may enjoy certain rights and privileges, like the exploration returned to respondent bank without any need of demand. Thus, said goods,
and development of natural resources. manufactured products or proceeds thereof, whether in the form of money or
bills, receivables, or accounts separate and capable of identification were
ISSUE: W/N the application by the SC of the grandfather resulted to the respondent banks property. When the trust receipts matured, petitioner failed
abandonment of the control test to return the goods to respondent bank, or to return their value amounting to
P6,940,280.66 despite demands. Thus, the bank filed a criminal complaint for
RULING: No. The control test can be applied jointly with the Grandfather estafa6 against petitioner in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
Rule to determine the observance of foreign ownership restriction in
nationalized economic activities. The Control Test and the Grandfather Rule ISSUE: Whether or not Ching is liable for Estafa
are not incompatible ownership-determinant methods that can only be applied
alternative to each other. Rather, these methods can, if appropriate, be used RULING: In the case at bar, the transaction between petitioner and
cumulatively in the determination of the ownership and control of corporations respondent bank falls under the trust receipt transactions envisaged in P.D.
engaged in fully or partly nationalized activities, as the mining operation No. 115. Respondent bank imported the goods and entrusted the same to
involved in this case or the operation of public utilities. PBMI under the trust receipts signed by petitioner, as entrustee, with the bank
as entruster. The failure of person to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the
The Grandfather Rule, standing alone, should not be used to determine the goods covered by the trust receipt to the entruster or to return said goods, if
Filipino ownership and control in a corporation, as it could result in an not sold, is a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal
otherwise foreign corporation rendered qualified to perform nationalized or sanctions.It must be stressed that P.D. No. 115 is a declaration by legislative
partly nationalized activities. Hence, it is only when the Control Test is first authority that, as a matter of public policy, the failure of person to turn over the
complied with that the Grandfather Rule may be applied. Put in another proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by a trust receipt or to return said
manner, if the subject corporations Filipino equity falls below the threshold goods, if not sold, is a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal
60%, the corporation is immediately considered foreign-owned, in which case, sanctions.
the need to resort to the Grandfather Rule disappears.
Failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods
In this case, using the control test, Narra, Tesoro and MacArthur appear to covered by the trust receipts to the entruster or to return said goods if they
have satisfied the 60-40 equity requirement. But the nationality of these were not disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt is a crime
corporations and the foreign-owned common investor that funds them was in under P.D. No. 115, without need of proving intent to defraud.In Colinares
doubt, hence, the need to apply the Grandfather Rule. ## v. Court of Appeals, the Court declared that there are two possible situations
in a trust receipt transaction.
The first is covered by the provision which refers to money received under the
obligation involving the duty to deliver it (entregarla) to the owner of the
merchandise sold.

The second is covered by the provision which refers to merchandise received


under the obligation to return it (devolvera) to the owner.

Thus, failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods
covered by the trust receipts to the entruster or to return said goods if they
were not disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt is a crime
under P.D. No. 115, without need of proving intent to defraud.

The law punishes dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of


money or goods to the prejudice of the entruster, regardless of whether the
latter is the owner or not.

A mere failure to deliver the proceeds of the sale of the goods, if not sold,
constitutes a criminal offense that causes prejudice, not only to another, but
more to the public interest.

P.D. No. 115 is malum prohibitum but is classified as estafa under paragraph
1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, or estafa with abuse of
confidence.The crime defined in P.D. No. 115 is malum prohibitum but is
classified as estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code, or estafa with abuse of confidence. It may be committed by a
corporation or other juridical entity or by natural persons. However, the penalty
for the crime is imprisonment for the periods provided in said Article 315.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi