G.R. No. 151895 ; February 16, 2005
BANK OF COMMERCE, petitioner, vs. TERESITA S. SERRANO, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Teresita S. Serrano, as General Manager and Treasurer of Via Moda International, Inc., executed a Trust Receipt in favor of petitioner Bank of Commerce. The trust receipt secured an Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by the bank to finance Via Moda’s importation of fabrics. Under the trust receipt, Via Moda held the imported goods in trust for the bank, obligated to sell them and remit the proceeds, or to return the goods if not sold.
Via Moda shipped the entrusted goods to a consignee abroad. The Bank of Commerce’s officer signed the export declarations, consenting to the shipment. The bank, however, applied the proceeds from the sale of these goods to settle a separate export packing loan obligation of Via Moda, not to the obligation under the trust receipt. Consequently, the bank demanded payment for the unpaid balance under the trust receipt. When Via Moda failed to pay, the bank filed a criminal case for estafa under the Trust Receipts Law against Serrano.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting the civil liability of respondent Serrano after her acquittal in the criminal case for estafa under the Trust Receipts Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic rests on the nature of criminal liability under the Trust Receipts Law and the distinction between criminal and civil liability. For a conviction of estafa under P.D. 115, the element of misappropriation or conversion by the entrustee must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals found this element absent because the bank itself, through its officer’s signature on the export documents, authorized the disposal of the goods. This authorization negated the criminal intent to defraud.
An acquittal in a criminal case generally extinguishes civil liability only when such liability arises solely from the criminal act. Here, any civil obligation arises from the contract of loan secured by the trust receipt, a distinct source. However, the Court upheld the deletion of civil liability in this specific criminal case because the petitioner failed to sufficiently establish in the proceedings below that Serrano bound herself personally. The petitioner’s arguments—primarily that a guarantee clause in the letter of credit made her solidarity liable—involved factual determinations requiring examination of evidence not proper for a petition for review on certiorari, which is limited to questions of law. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s factual conclusion that there was no showing of personal liability. The bank is not precluded from filing a separate civil action to litigate the contractual issues.