Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 112 views

    Ricarze Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Kim Lorenzo Calatrava
    Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents related to checks from his employer Caltex that were deposited in Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) without Caltex's knowledge. PCIB reimbursed Caltex for the amount of the checks. PCIB, through its lawyers, opposed a motion by Ricarze arguing that PCIB had no right to act as a private prosecutor. PCIB claimed it had been subrogated to the rights of Caltex as the private complainant. The Court ruled that no consent was needed from Ricarze for subrogation to occur, as this was a case of legal subrogation that takes place by operation of law,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ricarze Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Kim Lorenzo Calatrava
    112 views1 page
    Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents related to checks from his employer Caltex that were deposited in Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) without Caltex's knowledge. PCIB reimbursed Caltex for the amount of the checks. PCIB, through its lawyers, opposed a motion by Ricarze arguing that PCIB had no right to act as a private prosecutor. PCIB claimed it had been subrogated to the rights of Caltex as the private complainant. The Court ruled that no consent was needed from Ricarze for subrogation to occur, as this was a case of legal subrogation that takes place by operation of law,

    Original Description:

    Case Digest in Obligations and Contracts

    Original Title

    Ricarze vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents related to checks from his employer Caltex that were deposited in Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) without Caltex's knowledge. PCIB reimbursed Caltex for the amount of the checks. PCIB, through its lawyers, opposed a motion by Ricarze arguing that PCIB had no right to act as a private prosecutor. PCIB claimed it had been subrogated to the rights of Caltex as the private complainant. The Court ruled that no consent was needed from Ricarze for subrogation to occur, as this was a case of legal subrogation that takes place by operation of law,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    112 views1 page

    Ricarze Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Kim Lorenzo Calatrava
    Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents related to checks from his employer Caltex that were deposited in Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) without Caltex's knowledge. PCIB reimbursed Caltex for the amount of the checks. PCIB, through its lawyers, opposed a motion by Ricarze arguing that PCIB had no right to act as a private prosecutor. PCIB claimed it had been subrogated to the rights of Caltex as the private complainant. The Court ruled that no consent was needed from Ricarze for subrogation to occur, as this was a case of legal subrogation that takes place by operation of law,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RICARZE vs. C.

    A
    FACTS: Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was a collector-messenger assigned at the main office of
    Caltex. His primary task was to collect checks payable to the company and deliver them to the
    cashier. He also delivered invoices to Caltexs customers.
    On November 6, 1997, Caltex, through its Banking and Insurance Department Manager filed a
    criminal complaint against petitioner for estafa through falsification of commercial documents,
    alleging that, while the company was conducting a daily electronic report from Philippine
    Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB), one of its depositary banks, it was discovered that unknown to
    the department, a company check, had been cleared through PCIB. An investigation also revealed
    that two other checks were also missing and that in a check, the department managers signature and
    that of another signatory, were forgeries. Another check was also cleared through the same bank
    which was likewise not issued by Caltex, and the signatures appearing thereon had also been forged.
    In the meantime, the PCIB credited the amount of P500K to Caltex on March 29, 1998.
    However, the City Prosecutor of Makati City was not informed of this development.
    Twin information were filed alleging the intent to defraud or cause damage to Caltex.
    During the pre-trial, the Siguion Reyna, Montecillio and Ongsiako Law Offices (SRMO) as
    private prosecutor representing PCIB filed a Formal Offer of Evidence. Petitioner contends that SRMO
    had no personality to appear as private prosecutor because under the Information, the private
    complainant is Caltex and not PCIB.
    PCIB, through SRMO, opposed the motion. It contended that the PCIB had re-credited the
    amount to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity; hence, the PCIB had been subrogated to the rights
    and interests of Caltex as private complainant.
    Petitioner next argues that in no way was PCIB subrogated to the rights of Caltex, considering
    that he has no knowledge of the subrogation much less gave his consent to it.

    ISSUE: W/N PCIB was subrogated to the rights of Caltex.

    RULING: Petitioners argument on subrogation is misplaced. The Court agrees with respondent
    PCIBs comment that petitioner failed to make a distinction between legal and conventional
    subrogation.
    Subrogation is the transfer of all the rights of the creditor to a third person, who substitutes
    him in all his rights. It may either be legal or conventional.
    Legal subrogation is that which takes place without agreement but by operation of law
    because of certain acts. Instances of legal subrogation are those provided in Article 1302 of the Civil
    Code.
    Conventional subrogation, on the other hand, is that which takes place by agreement of the
    parties.
    Thus, petitioners acquiescence is not necessary for subrogation to take place because the
    instant case is one of legal subrogation that occurs by operation of law, and without need of the
    debtors knowledge.

    You might also like