This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-08-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts reveal that the dealing between petitioner and Metrobank was not a trust receipt transaction but one of simple loan. Petitioner's admission that he signed the trust receipts on behalf of Supermax, which failed to pay the loan or turn over the proceeds of the sale or the goods to Metrobank upon demand does not conclusively prove that the transaction was, indeed, a trust receipts transaction. In contrast to the nomenclature of the transaction, the parties really intended a contract of loan. This Court in Ng v. People[14] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Perez,[15] cases which are in all four corners the same as the instant case ruled that the fact that the entruster bank knew even before the execution of the trust receipt agreements that the construction materials covered were never intended by the entrustee for resale or for the manufacture of items to be sold is sufficient to prove that the transaction was a simple loan and not a trust receipts transaction. | |||||
|
2013-02-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In Land Bank v. Perez,[43] the Court has elucidated on the coverage of Section 4, supra, to wit: There are two obligations in a trust receipt transaction. The first is covered by the provision that refers to money under the obligation to deliver it (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise sold. The second is covered by the provision referring to merchandise received under the obligation to return it (devolverla) to the owner. Thus, under the Trust Receipts Law, intent to defraud is presumed when (1) the entrustee fails to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods covered by the trust receipt to the entruster; or (2) when the entrustee fails to return the goods under trust, if they are not disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipts. | |||||