Pdic V. Manu Gidwani GR No. 234616
Pdic V. Manu Gidwani GR No. 234616
The individuals did not deposit the crossed checks in Issue: Did the then SOJ Caparas gravely abuse his
their respective bank accounts. Rather, the face value discretion in finding probable cause against Manu Gidwani,
of all the checks were credited to a single bank in connection with the allegations in PDIC’s criminal
account with Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation complaint? NO.
(RCBC) owned by Manu Gidwani.
HELD: NO
According to PDIC, it only discovered the foregoing
circumstance when the checks were cleared and returned to Jurisprudence elucidates that the elements of estafa or
it. This prompted PDIC to conduct an investigation on the swindling under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the RPC
true nature of the deposit placements of the 86 individuals. are the following:
Based on available bank documents, the spouses Gidwani 1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
and the 86 individuals maintained a total of 471 deposit fraudulent means;
accounts (aggregating to over 118 million Pesos) with the
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
different Legacy Banks; and 142 of these accounts
means must be made or executed prior to or
(amounting to over 20 million Pesos) were in the names of
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
helpers and rank-and-file employees of the Gidwani
spouses. 3. That the offended party must have relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he
Thus, according to PDIC, most of them if not all, did not
was induced to part with his money or property because of
have the financial capacity to deposit the amounts recorded
the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and
under their names, let alone make the deposits in various
Legacy Banks located nationwide. PDIC also noted that 4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
advance interests on several of the deposits were paid to damage.
the Gidwani spouses even though they are not the named
owners of the accounts. According to PDIC:
Pursuant to its mandate to safeguard the deposit insurance 1. the crime charged (estafa or swindling under paragraph
fund against illegal schemes and machinations, PDIC lodged 2(a) of Article 315 of the RPC) was committed when the 86
a criminal complaint against the Gidwani spouses and the other individuals fraudulently declared that they are the
86 other individuals, before the Department of Justice bona fide owners of 471 deposits with the legacy banks;
(DOJ) Task Force on Financial Fraud (DOJ Task Force) for:
2. the purported depositors, in conspiracy with Manu,
1. Estafa through falsification under Art. 315(2)(a) in falsified official documents by making the untruthful
relation to Art. 172(1) and 171(4) of the Revised Penal statement of ownership in their deposit insurance claims;
Code; and
3. it (PDIC) relied on the representations of the claimants
2. Money laundering as defined in Section 4(a) of AMLA. when it released to them the deposit insurance proceeds
amounting to over 98 million Pesos, of which over 97
On January 14, 2014, the DOJ Task Force promulgated a million Pesos was deposited to the RCBC account of Manu
Resolution dismissing the Complaint. PDIC's motion for Gidwani; and
reconsideration from the said Resolution was likewise
denied. 4. the government suffered damage when PDIC discovered
upon investigation that Manu was the sole beneficial owner
Unperturbed, PDIC interposed a petition for review of the bank accounts.
with the Office of the Secretary of Justice (SOJ).
The [Court] disagrees with the CA’s ruling that "PDIC failed
On September 11, 2015, then Undersecretary of Justice to prove that Gidwani is the owner of all subject bank
Jose F. Justiniano issued a Resolution (Justiniano accounts or financed the same" and, as such, Manu could
Resolution) denying PDIC's appeal. not be considered to have committed false pretenses or
misrepresentations against PDIC.
On June 3, 2016, then SOJ Emmanuel Caparas, however,
overturned the Justianio Resolution through his own ruling
SC: Manu did not commit false pretenses or The fact these individuals stated/reported Manu Gidwani's
msirepresentations against PDIC. office or business address as their own further arouses
serious suspicion on the true ownership of the funds
It must be recalled that the criminal case is still in the stage deposited. It gives the impression that they had been used
of preliminary investigation. Under Rule 112, Section 1 of by Gidwani as dummies, and that their purported ownership
the Rules of Court, a preliminary investigation is "an inquiry was a mere subterfuge in order to increase the amount of
or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient Gidwani’s protected deposit.
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty Under Republic Act No. 3591 (PDIC Charter), as amended:
thereof, and should be held for trial."
all deposits in a bank maintained in the same right and
The investigation is advisedly called preliminary, because it capacity for a depositor's benefit, either in his name or in
is yet to be followed by the trial proper in a court of law. the name of others, shall be added together for the purpose
The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display of the of determining the insured deposit amount due to a bona
parties since the function of the investigating prosecutor is fide depositor, which amount should not exceed the
not to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. maximum deposit insurance coverage (MDIC) of
P250,000.00.
In this case, the PDIC reportedly discovered that there was
only one beneficial owner of the 471 bank accounts with the Thus, the entitlement to a deposit insurance is based not on
Legacy Banks (purportedly owned by 86 other individuals) – the number of bank accounts held, but on the number of
respondent Manu. beneficial owners.
PDIC reportedly discovered that 142 of these 471 accounts, It is this government policy and P250,000.00 threshold that
with the total amount of over 20 million Pesos, were in the Gidwani purportedly circumvented by conspiring with the 86
names of helpers and rank-and-file employees of the individuals.
Gidwani spouses who do not have the financial capacity to
deposit the amounts recorded under their names. Moreover, If not for the fact that the 683 Landbank crossed checks
the helpers and rank-and-file employees who reside and are amounting to over 97 million Pesos were deposited in the
employed in Bacolod City maintained bank accounts in RCBC account of Gidwani, PDIC would not have gotten wind
Legacy Banks located in different parts of the country of this probable concealment of true ownership over the
(outside of Bacolod City). subject bank accounts.
SEC VS LAYGO Issue 1: Whether or not the trust fund of Legacy form part
of its corporate assets. – NO.
Facts: SEC issued the corresponding New Rules on the
Registration and Sale of Pre-Need Plans (New Rules) to Ruling: The Trust Fund is for the sole benefit of the
govern the pre-need industry prior to the enactment of R.A. planholders and it cannot be used to satisfy the claims of
No. 9829, otherwise known as the Pre-Need Code of the other creditors of Legacy.
Philippines (Pre-Need Code).
The Assignee argues that Legacy has retained a beneficial
It required from the pre-need providers the creation interest in the trust fund despite the execution of the trust
of trust funds as a requirement for registration. agreement and that the properties can be the subject of
insolvency proceedings.
As defined in Rule 1.9 of the New Rules, "'Trust Fund'
means a fund set up from planholders' payments, separate Legacy is not a beneficiary. It must be stressed that a
and distinct from the paid-up capital of a registered pre- person is considered as a beneficiary of a trust if there is a
need company, established with a trustee under a trust manifest intention to give such a person the beneficial
agreement approved by the SEC, to pay for the benefits as interest over the trust properties.
provided in the pre-need plan."
Here, the terms of the trust agreement plainly confer the
Legacy (pre-need company) entered into a trust status of beneficiary to the planholders, not to Legacy. The
agreement with the Land Bank of the Philippines beneficial ownership is vested in the planholders and the
(LBP). legal ownership in the trustee, LBP; Legacy, as trustor, is
left without any iota of interest in the trust fund.
Subsequently, Legacy became a subject of a petition for
involuntary insolvency by private respondents in their To rule that Legacy has retained a beneficial interest in the
capacity as planholders. trust fund is to perpetuate the injustices being committed
against the planholders and violate not only the spirit of the
It was declared insolvent by the RTC and it also ordered trust agreement but, more importantly, the lawmaker's
Legacy to submit an inventory of its assets and liabilities. intent.
SEC opposed the inclusion of the trust fund in the inventory If indeed Legacy had an interest that could be reached by
of corporate assets on the ground that to do so would its creditors even during insolvency, the planholders would
contravene the New Rules which treated trust funds as be prejudiced as they would be forced to share in the assets
principally established for the exclusive purpose of that would be distributed pro rata to all creditors, whether
guaranteeing the delivery of benefits due to the planholders or not.
planholders.
Legacy merely agreed to facilitate the payment of the
Despite the opposition of the SEC, Judge Laigo ordered the benefits from the trust fund to the intended beneficiaries,
insolvency Assignee to take possession of the trust fund. acting as a conduit or an agent of the trustee in the
RTC stated that the trust fund could be withdrawn by the enforcement of the trust agreement.
Assignee to be used for the expenses he would incur in the
discharge of his functions and to be distributed among the Issue 2: Is Legacy a debtor of the planholders relative to
creditors who had officially filed their valid claims with the the trust fund? – NO.
court.
Ruling: The Court cannot subscribe either to the Assignee's
position that Legacy is a debtor of the planholders relative
to the trust fund. In trust, it is the trustee, and not the
trustor, who owes fiduciary duty to the beneficiary. The
trustee, LBP, is tasked with the fiduciary duty to act for the
benefit of the planholders as to matters within the scope of
the relation.
Sir: How would you reconcile that with the ruling in this
case which says that the trust fund is not part of the
assets which should be given to the creditors?
Student: They will raise the claim against the trust itself
for the release of their claims against the trust fund
given that the trust fund is solely for their benefit.
SEC v CAP GR No. 202052, March 7, 2018 scheme to correct the deficiency, CAP, among others,
proposed to purchase MRT III Bonds and assign the same
Facts: College Assurance Plan Philippines, Inc. (CAP) sells to the Trust Fund.
preneed education plans.
CAP purchased MRT III bonds from SMART and FEMI
To guarantee the payment of benefits under its educational but was ordered by the SEC Oversight Board to stop
plans, CAP set up a Trust Fund contributing therein a paying SMART/FEMI due to its perceived inadequacy
certain percentage of the amount actually collected from of CAP's funds.
each planholder.
Subsequently, CAP filed a Petition for Rehabilitation. In
The Trust Fund, with the aid of trustee banks, is invested in the interim, CAP sold the MRT III bonds and the
assets and securities with yields higher than the projected buyers’ payment was credited to CAP’s trust accounts
increase in tuition fees. with Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB).
• “benefits” or
• “cost of services rendered or property delivered” or
• “administrative expense”
that could be validly withdrawn from the trust fund? – NO.
Ruling:
The obligation to pay Smart and FEMI did not constitute the
"benefits" or "cost of services rendered" or "property
delivered".