GR L 34338; (November, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-34338 November 21, 1984
LOURDES VALERIO LIM, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Lourdes Valerio Lim was convicted of estafa by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals with a modified penalty. The conviction stemmed from a transaction involving tobacco owned by Maria de Guzman Vda. de Ayroso. On January 10, 1966, Lim went to Ayroso’s house and proposed to sell Ayroso’s 615 kilos of tobacco at P1.30 per kilo. A document (Exhibit “A”) was executed, stating Lim received the tobacco “to be sold” and that the proceeds of P799.50 “will be given to her as soon as it was sold.” Lim took possession of the tobacco but only remitted P240.00 to Ayroso despite repeated demands.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether Exhibit “A” constitutes a contract of agency to sell or a contract of sale. This determination is crucial as a contract of sale would transfer ownership to Lim, potentially negating criminal liability for estafa, whereas a contract of agency would mean she held the goods or proceeds in trust for Ayroso, with misappropriation giving rise to criminal liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the appellate court’s finding that Exhibit “A” created a contract of agency to sell, not a contract of sale. The legal logic hinges on the absence of transfer of ownership. The agreement explicitly stated the tobacco was “to be sold” and the proceeds were “to be given to her as soon as it was sold.” This language established that Lim’s obligation was to remit the specific proceeds from the sale, not the value of the goods, indicating she acted as a selling agent. Ownership remained with Ayroso until a sale to a third party was effected.
The Court rejected Lim’s arguments under Article 1197 of the Civil Code regarding the fixing of a period for payment. The obligation became demandable immediately upon the sale of the tobacco, as stipulated in the document, rendering Article 1197 inapplicable. Furthermore, the circumstances, including Lim’s initiative in procuring the tobacco and the understanding she would profit from any overprice, supported the agency relationship. Consequently, her failure to account for and deliver the full proceeds constituted misappropriation or conversion of funds held in trust, establishing the elements of estafa.