commercial building. D ordered construction materials from E and received delivery thereof. The following day, C went to F Bank to apply for loan to pay for the construction materials. As security for the loan, C was made to execute a trust receipt. One year later, after C failed to pay the balance of the loan, F Bank charged him with violation of the Trust Receipts Law.
a) What is a Trust Receipt? Suggested Answer: A trust receipt is a written or printed document signed by the entrustee in favor of the entruster containing terms and conditions substantially complying with the provisions of the Trust Receipts Law, whereby the bank as entruster releases the goods to the possession of the entrustee but retains ownership thereof while the entrustee may sell the goods and apply the proceeds for full payment of his liability to the bank (Section 3(j), Trust Receipts Law). b) Will the case against C prosper? Reason briefly. Suggested Answer: No, the case against C will not prosper. Since C received the construction materials from E before the trust receipt transaction was entered into, the transaction was a simple loan, with the trust receipt merely as a collateral or security for the loan. This is inconsistent with a trust receipt transaction where the title to the goods remains with the bank and the goods are released to the entrustee before the loan is granted (Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation vs CA, 356 SCRA 671 [2001]). 2. What acts or omissions are penalized under the Trust Receipts Law? Suggested Answer: Failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instrument covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or to return the goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt is penalized as estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC (Sec.13, PD No. 125). 3. Is lack of intent to defraud a bar to the prosecution of these acts or omissions? Suggested Answer: No. There is no requirement to prove intent to defraud. The mere failure to account for or return the goods, documents or instruments in question gives rise to the crime, which is malum prohibitum (Ong vs CA, 401 SCRA 648,658 [2003]). 4. Tom Cruz obtained a loan of P1 Million from XYZ Bank to finance his purchase of 5,000 bags of fertilizer. He executed a trust receipt in favor of XYZ Bank over the 5,000 bags of fertilizer. Tom Cruz withdrew the 5,000 bags from the warehouse to be transported to Lucena City where his store was located. On the way, armed robbers took from Tom Cruz the 5,000 bags of fertilizer. Tom Cruz now claims that the obligation to pay the loan to XYZ Bank is extinguished because the loss was not due to his fault. Is Tom Cruz correct? Explain. Suggested Answer: Being the entrustee, the obligation of Tom Cruz to pay XYZ Bank is not extinguished by the loss of the goods. Section 10 of the Trust Receipts Law provides: Section 10. Liability of entrustee for loss. The risk of loss shall be borne by the entrustee. Loss of goods, documents or instruments which are the subject of a trust receipt, pending their disposition, irrespective of whether or not it was due to the fault or negligence of the entrustee, shall not extinguish his obligation to the entrustee for the value thereof.
United States v. Angel Cerceda, United States of America v. Courtney Ricardo Alford, A.K.A. "Rickey," Edward Bernard Williams, A.K.A. "Bernard," Nathaniel Dean, United States of America v. Hector Fernandez-Dominguez, United States of America v. Jesus E. Cardona, United States of America v. Carlos Hernandez, United States of America v. Adolfo Mestril, A.K.A. "El Gordo," Jose Herminio Benitez, A.K.A. "William Muniz," A.K.A "Emilio," Heriberto Alvarez, Elpidio, Pedro Iglesias-Cruz, A.K.A. "Budweiser," United States of America v. Minnie Ruth Williams, Ralph W. Corker, United States of America v. Hiram Martinez, Jr., United States of America v. Diogenes Palacios, United States of America v. Fred De La Mata, Manuel A. Calas, Oscar Castilla and Enrique Fernandez, United States of America v. Steven Johnson, United States of America v. Francisco Jose Arias, Gustavo Javier Pirela-Avila, United States of America v. Enrique Acosta, Milciades Jiminez, United States of America v. Carlos A. Zapata, U