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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 913 views

    Sia V People

    Uploaded by

    King Badong
    1) Jose Sia was the General Manager of Metal Manufacturing Company which needed to import steel sheets, so he applied for a letter of credit from Continental Bank. 2) The goods arrived in July 1963 and there is a debate around whether they were delivered before or after Sia signed a trust receipt. 3) Metal Manufacturing did not pay the amount due of over P46,000 pesos. 4) The court ruled that Sia should not be held criminally liable because the bank was transacting with the company, not Sia individually, and there was no express law making him liable for the corporation's criminal offenses.

    Copyright:

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

    Sia V People

    Uploaded by

    King Badong
    913 views1 page
    1) Jose Sia was the General Manager of Metal Manufacturing Company which needed to import steel sheets, so he applied for a letter of credit from Continental Bank. 2) The goods arrived in July 1963 and there is a debate around whether they were delivered before or after Sia signed a trust receipt. 3) Metal Manufacturing did not pay the amount due of over P46,000 pesos. 4) The court ruled that Sia should not be held criminally liable because the bank was transacting with the company, not Sia individually, and there was no express law making him liable for the corporation's criminal offenses.

    Original Title

    Sia v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Jose Sia was the General Manager of Metal Manufacturing Company which needed to import steel sheets, so he applied for a letter of credit from Continental Bank. 2) The goods arrived in July 1963 and there is a debate around whether they were delivered before or after Sia signed a trust receipt. 3) Metal Manufacturing did not pay the amount due of over P46,000 pesos. 4) The court ruled that Sia should not be held criminally liable because the bank was transacting with the company, not Sia individually, and there was no express law making him liable for the corporation's criminal offenses.

    Copyright:

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

    Sia V People

    Uploaded by

    King Badong
    1) Jose Sia was the General Manager of Metal Manufacturing Company which needed to import steel sheets, so he applied for a letter of credit from Continental Bank. 2) The goods arrived in July 1963 and there is a debate around whether they were delivered before or after Sia signed a trust receipt. 3) Metal Manufacturing did not pay the amount due of over P46,000 pesos. 4) The court ruled that Sia should not be held criminally liable because the bank was transacting with the company, not Sia individually, and there was no express law making him liable for the corporation's criminal offenses.

    Copyright:

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

    Sia v People, 121 SCRA 655 (1983)

    FACTS:

    Jose O. Sia sometime prior to 24 May, 1963, was General Manager of the Metal Manufacturing Company of
    the Philippines, Inc. engaged in the manufacture of steel office equipment; on 31 May, 1963, because his company was
    in need of raw materials to be imported from abroad, he applied for a letter of credit to import steel sheets from Mitsui
    Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, the application being directed to the Continental Bank, herein complainant, and his
    application having been approved, the letter of credit was opened on 5 June, 1963 in the amount of $18,300. The goods
    arrived sometime in July, 1963 according to accused himself, now from here on there is some debate on the evidence;
    according to Complainant Bank, there was permitted delivery of the steel sheets only upon execution of a trust receipt,
    while according to the accused, the goods were delivered to him sometime before he executed that trust receipt in fact
    they had already been converted into steel office equipment by the time he signed said trust receipt. But there is no
    question - and this is not debated — that the bill of exchange issued for the purpose of collecting the unpaid account
    thereon having fallen due neither accused nor his company having made payment thereon notwithstanding demands,
    and the accounts having reached the sum in pesos of P46,818.68 after deducting his deposit valued at P28,736.47.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Sia should be held liable.

    RULING: NO.

    The bank is transacting with Metal Manufacturing and not with him. The case cited by the Court of Appeals in support
    of its stand - Tan Boon Kong case, supra - may however not be squarely applicable to the instant case in that the
    corporation was directly required by law to do an act in a given manner, and the same law makes the person who fails
    to perform the act in the prescribed manner expressly liable criminally. The performance of the act is an obligation
    directly imposed by the law on the corporation. Since it is a responsible officer or officers of the corporation who actually
    perform the act for the corporation, they must of necessity be the ones to assume the criminal liability; otherwise this
    liability as created by the law would be illusory, and the deterrent effect of the law, negated.

    In the present case, a distinction is to be found with the Tan Boon Kong case in that the act alleged to be a crime is not
    in the performance of an act directly ordained by law to be performed by the corporation. The act is imposed by
    agreement of parties, as a practice observed in the usual pursuit of a business or a commercial transaction. The offense
    may arise, if at all, from the peculiar terms and condition agreed upon by the parties to the transaction, not by direct
    provision of the law. The intention of the parties, therefore, is a factor determinant of whether a crime was committed
    or whether a civil obligation alone intended by the parties. With this explanation, the distinction adverted to between
    the Tan Boon Kong case and the case at bar should come out clear and meaningful. In the absence of an express
    provision of law making the petitioner liable for the criminal offense committed by the corporation of which he is a
    president as in fact there is no such provisions in the Revised Penal Code under which petitioner is being prosecuted,
    the existence of a criminal liability on his part may not be said to be beyond any doubt. In all criminal prosecutions, the
    existence of criminal liability for which the accused is made answerable must be clear and certain. The maxim that all
    doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused is always of compelling force in the prosecution of offenses.

    You might also like