Sarao v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Carmelita Sarao was charged with violation of B.P. 22 and estafa. The B.P. 22 charge stemmed from a dishonored check issued to private respondent Kim del Pilar, allegedly for partial payment of an obligation. The estafa charge arose from the alleged misappropriation of eight pieces of jewelry, valued at P301,500.00, entrusted to petitioner by del Pilar to be sold on commission basis, with the obligation to return them if unsold. The jewelry was sold to Victoria Vallarta, who issued two checks totaling P214,000.00. These checks were dishonored, leading to criminal cases filed by petitioner against Vallarta. Consequently, petitioner failed to pay del Pilar or Azucena Enriquez (owner of the jewelry) for the value of the jewelry. Petitioner then issued a Philbanking Check No. 148526, undated, for P214,000.00 as partial payment to del Pilar, which was handed over to Enriquez. On June 15, 1986, with petitioner's consent, Enriquez dated the check. Upon presentment, the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, and despite notice, petitioner failed to settle the obligation. Procedural History: The trial court granted petitioner's motion to dismiss the estafa and B.P. 22 charges, finding no proof of misappropriation and concluding that there was an agreement that the undated check would not be encashed until payment was received from the buyers of the jewelry. However, the trial court held petitioner civilly liable for P214,000.00 with legal interest, reasoning that del Pilar had paid Enriquez for the jewelry. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Petition: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals overlooked the trial court's finding that her obligation to turn over the proceeds was due only upon collection from Vallarta.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner's obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sale to respondent del Pilar was already due and demandable. Whether petitioner incurred criminal liability for estafa and violation of B.P. 22.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals finding petitioner Carmelita Sarao liable to respondent Kim del Pilar in the amount of Two Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P214,000.00) with legal interest thereon from 10 September 1987 until fully paid are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioner's obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sale to respondent del Pilar was already due and demandable: The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts. While there might have been an agreement that the undated check would not be encashed until payment was received from the buyer, the testimony of Azucena Enriquez was crucial. Enriquez testified that petitioner Sarao told her to date the check on June 15, 1986, because she had funds in the bank, but upon encashment, she had no funds. This act of dating the check, coupled with the representation of having funds, implied that petitioner acknowledged her obligation was due and demandable. By dating the check and representing that she had funds, petitioner could no longer insist on the original agreement that payment was contingent on collection from the buyer. Since respondent del Pilar had already paid P214,000.00 to Enriquez, petitioner was obligated to reimburse del Pilar the same amount with legal interest. The Court found no valid reason to overturn the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. On the issue of whether petitioner incurred criminal liability for estafa and violation of B.P. 22: The Supreme Court sustained the trial court's dismissal of the criminal charges. For estafa, the Court agreed with the trial court that there was insufficient evidence to prove misappropriation or conversion of the jewelry proceeds for personal use. The evidence showed the articles were sold to third persons, and petitioner became an "unwilling victim" of bouncing checks. For B.P. 22, the trial court found that the undated check was issued with the understanding that it would not be encashed until payment was received from the buyers. The mere fact that the check was issued undated and accepted by the complainant indicated that petitioner had no sufficient funds at the time of issuance, and the agreement regarding its encashment was a crucial factor in negating criminal liability under B.P. 22.
Main Doctrine
A party who issues an undated check with the agreement that it would not be encashed until payment is received from a third party, but subsequently instructs the payee to date the check despite having no funds, thereby acknowledges that the obligation is due and demandable, and cannot later insist on the original agreement.