NARI K. GIDWANI, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 195064; Janua !

15, "014 SERENO, CJ: FA#TS$ Petitioner is the president of G.G. Sportswear Manufacturing Corporation (GSMC), which is engaged in the export of ready-to-wear c othes. GSMC secured the e!"roidery services of # Grande $ndustria Corporation (# Grande) and issued on various dates fro! %une &''( to )ece!"er &''( a tota of &* +anco de ,ro (+),) chec-s as pay!ent for the atter.s services worth an aggregate tota of &,/0/,(*(./0. 1pon present!ent, these chec-s were dishonored "y the drawee "an- - c osed account. # Grande sent three de!and etters regarding 2 of the &* issued chec-s Petitioner wrote to # Grande.s counse ac-now edging receipt of the 2 ,cto"er de!and etter and infor!ing the atter that GSMC had fi ed a Petition with the S#C. $t was a Petition for the )ec aration of a State of Suspension of Pay!ents, for the 3pprova of a Reha"i itation P an and 3ppoint!ent of a Manage!ent Co!!ittee.
/ (

3cting on the Petition, the S#C issued an ,rder ordering the suspension of a actions, c ai!s, and proceedings against GSMC unti further order fro! the S#C. $n short, GSMC did not pay # Grande. )espite its receipt of GSMC.s etter and exp anation, # Grande sti presented to the drawee "an- +), Chec- 4os. *****/5/60 and *****/5/65 dated 4ove!"er and )ece!"er &''(. # Grande fi ed a Co!p aint charging petitioner with eight counts of vio ation of +.P. 00 for the chec-s covering %une to ,cto"er &''(. # Grande fi ed a si!i ar Co!p aint in )ece!"er &''(, covering the chec-s issued in 4ove!"er and )ece!"er &''(. $nfor!ations were su"se7uent y fi ed Petitioner.s defenses8 (&) the S#C ,rder of Suspension of Pay!ent ega y prevented hi! fro! honoring the chec-s9 (0) there was no consideration for the issuance of the chec-s, "ecause the e!"roidery services of # Grande were of poor 7ua ity and, hence, were re:ected9 and (5) he did not receive a notice of dishonor of the chec-s. M;C of Mani a found petitioner gui ty "eyond reasona" e dou"t of ten counts of vio ation of +.P. 00. R;C affir!ed the findings of the M;C Petitioner fi ed with the C3 a Petition for Review under Ru e <0. C3 part y granted the appea and ac7uitted petitioner of eight counts of vio ation of +.P. 00, whi e sustaining his conviction for the two re!aining counts Petitioner fi ed his Motion for Partia Reconsideration arguing that8 (&) there was no c ear evidence showing that he ac-now edged the 4otice of )ishonor of the two re!aining chec-s9 (0) the suspension ,rder of the S#C was a va id reason for stopping the pay!ent of the chec-s9 and, (5) as a corporate officer, he cou d on y "e he d civi y ia" e. C3 denied. =ence, this Petition.

ISS%ES$ 3. ;=# C,1R; ,> 3PP#3?S #RR#) $4 R1?$4G ;=3; ;=# ,R)#R >,R ;=# S1SP#4S$,4 ,> P3@M#4; $SS1#) +@ ;=# S#C1R$;$#S 34) #AC=34G# C,MM$SS$,4 $S 4,; 3 B3?$) R#3S,4 ;, S;,P P3@M#4; ,> 3 C=#CC #B#4 $> S1C= ,R)#R D3S $SS1#) PR$,R ;, ;=# PR#S#4;M#4; ,> ;=# S1+%#C; C=#CCS >,R P3@M#4;9 +. ;=# C,1R; ,> 3PP#3?S #RR#) $4 >$4)$4G 3 C,RP,R3;# ,>>$C#R P#RS,43??@ ?$3+?# >,R ;=# C$B$? ,+?$G3;$,4 ,> ;=# C,RP,R3;$,4.
&<

HELD$ W& '(n) *+& a,,&a- *o .& /& (*o (ou0. $n convicting petitioner of two counts of vio ation of +.P. 00, the C3 app ied ;iong v. Co, in which we said8
&/

x x x ;he fi ing of the case for vio ation of +.P. + g. 00 is not a Ec ai!E that can "e en:oined within the purview of P.). 4o. '*0-3. ;rue, a though conviction of the accused for the a eged cri!e cou d resu t in the restitution, reparation or inde!nification of the private offended party for the da!age or in:ury he sustained "y reason of the fe onious act of the accused, neverthe ess, prosecution for vio ation of +.P. + g. 00 is a cri!ina action. (#!phasis supp ied.) ;he C3 further!ore cited ;iong in this wise8
&(

=ence, accused-appe ant cannot "e dee!ed excused fro! honoring his du y issued chec-s "y the !ere fi ing of the petition for suspension of pay!ents "efore the S#C. ,therwise, an a"surdity wi resu t such that E one who has engaged in cri!ina conduct cou d escape punish!ent "y the !ere fi ing of a petition for reha"i itation "y the corporation of which he is an officer.E (#!phasis supp ied.) =owever, what the C3 fai ed to consider was that the facts of ;iong were not on a fours with those of the present case and !ust "e put in the proper context. $n ;iong, the present!ent for pay!ent and the )(0+ono o' *+& 1+&120 *oo2 ,-a1& .&'o & *+& P&*(*(on for Suspension of Pay!ents for Reha"i itation Purposes was fi ed with the S#C. ;here was a ready an o" igation to pay the a!ount covered "y the chec-s. ;he cri!ina action for the vio ations of +.P. 00 was fi ed for fai ure to !eet this o" igation. ;he cri!ina proceedings were a ready underway when the S#C issued an ,!ni"us ,rder creating a Manage!ent Co!!ittee and conse7uent y suspending a actions for c ai!s against the de"tor therein. ;hus, in ;iong, this Court too- pains to differentiate the cri!ina action, the civi ia"i ity and the ad!inistrative proceedings invo ved. $n contrast, it is c ear that prior to the present!ent for pay!ent and the su"se7uent de!and etters to petitioner, there was a ready a awfu ,rder fro! the S#C suspending a pay!ents of c ai!s. $t was incu!"ent on hi! to fo ow that S#C ,rder. =e was a" e to sufficient y esta" ish that the accounts were c osed pursuant to the ,rder, without which a different set of circu!stances !ight have dictated his ia"i ity for those chec-s. Considering that there was a awfu ,rder fro! the S#C, the contract is dee!ed suspended. Dhen a contract is suspended, it te!porari y ceases to "e operative9 and it again "eco!es operative when a condition occurs F or a situation arises F warranting the ter!ination of the suspension of the contract.
&2

$n other words, the S#C ,rder a so created a suspensive condition. Dhen a contract is su":ect to a suspensive condition, its "irth ta-es p ace or its effectivity co!!ences on y if and when the event that constitutes the condition happens or is fu fi ed. ;hus, a* *+& *(/& , (3a*& &0,on)&n* , &0&n*&) *+& S&,*&/.& an) O1*o.& 1994 1+&120 'o &n1a0+/&n*, (* +a) no (5+* *o )o 0o, a0 *+& & 6a0 !&* no o.-(5a*(on )u& ' o/ ,&*(*(on& . Conse7uent y, "ecause there was a suspension of GSMC s o" igations, petitioner !ay not "e he d ia" e for the civi o" igations of the corporation covered "y the "an- chec-s at the ti!e this case arose. =owever, it !ust "e e!phasiGed that her non- ia"i ity shou d not pre:udice the right of # Grande to pursue its c ai! through re!edies avai a" e to it, su":ect to the S#C proceedings regarding the app ication for corporate reha"i itation. D=#R#>,R#, the Petition is here"y GR34;#).