The document summarizes a case involving whether a store owner can be held civilly liable for checks that were dishonored even though she was acquitted of criminal charges for the same checks. It finds that yes, she can be held civilly liable as she signed the back of the checks without indication of how she was bound, making her an indorser. Her acquittal in criminal court did not erase her civil liability. The dismissal was due to insufficient evidence, not a finding that the underlying facts did not exist.
The document summarizes a case involving whether a store owner can be held civilly liable for checks that were dishonored even though she was acquitted of criminal charges for the same checks. It finds that yes, she can be held civilly liable as she signed the back of the checks without indication of how she was bound, making her an indorser. Her acquittal in criminal court did not erase her civil liability. The dismissal was due to insufficient evidence, not a finding that the underlying facts did not exist.
The document summarizes a case involving whether a store owner can be held civilly liable for checks that were dishonored even though she was acquitted of criminal charges for the same checks. It finds that yes, she can be held civilly liable as she signed the back of the checks without indication of how she was bound, making her an indorser. Her acquittal in criminal court did not erase her civil liability. The dismissal was due to insufficient evidence, not a finding that the underlying facts did not exist.
Thursday, January 29, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Commercial Law Issue: Can petitioner be required to pay civil indemnity to private respondent after trial court had acquitted her of Facts: On several occasions, petitioner Sapiera, a sari- criminal charges? sari store owner, purchased from Monnico Mart certain grocery items, mostlycigarettes, and paid for them with checks issued by one Arturo de Guzman. These checks Held: Yes. It is undisputed that the four (4) checks issued were signed at the back by the petitioner. by De Guzman were signed by petitioner at the back without any indication as to how she should be bound When presented for payment, the checks thereby and, therefore, she is deemed to be an indorser were dishonored because the drawer’s account was thereof. The NIL clearly provides – Sec. 17. Construction already closed. Private respondent Roman Sua informed where instrument is ambiguous. --- Where the language of De Guzman and petitioner about the dishonor but both the instrument isambiguous, or there failed to pay the value of the checks. Hence, four (4) are admissions therein, the following rules of charges of estafa were filed against petitioner construction apply: x x x (f) Where a signature is so placed but consequently she was acquitted for insufficiency of upon the instrument that it is not clear in what capacity the evidence but the court a quo did not rule on whether she person making the same intended to sign, he is deemed could be held civilly liable for the checks she indorsed to an indorser. x x x private respondent. On appeal, the respondent court ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the remaining The dismissal of the criminal cases against petitioner did P210, P150. After deducting the amount already collected not erase her civil liability since the dismissal was due to by the latter as civil indemnity in the criminal cases against insufficiency of evidence and not from a declaration from De Guzman. Hence, this instant petition. the court that the fact from which the civil action might arise did not exist. An accused acquitted of estafa may On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having reasonable nevertheless be held civilly liable where the facts opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a established by the evidence so warrant. The accused person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the should be adjudged liable for the unpaid value of the automobile, although present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, either criminally or checks signed by her in favor of the complainant. civilly, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's acts 4. Facts: On August 13, 1994, the jeepney owned by his own." complainant and driven by Edgardo Castillo, plied its In the case at bar, nowhere does it show that usual route going to Virac, Catanduanes. While complainant participated in abetted or even approved the approaching a blind curve, the jeepney driver occupied negligent and reckless manner in which his driver the wrong lane. At the curve, they suddenly saw a parked maneuvered the vehicle on that blind curve. Hence, the dump truck and in order to avoid collision driver swerved warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge was to the right and accidentally plunged into the river. The erroneous. passengers sustained some injuries. Consequently, a criminal complaint against Castillo and complainant was filed before the sala of respondent judge who then issued a warrant for the arrest of both Castillo and complainant.
Issue: WON complainant can be held criminally liable.
Ruling: It has been held in Chapman v. Underwood (G.R.
No. 9010, March 28, 1914, 27 Phil 374.) "that An owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts.