|
Republic of the Philippines SECOND
DIVISION
|
|
|
|
ELEANOR DE LEON LLENADO, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and EDITHA VILLAFLORES, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 193279 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated:
March 14, 2012 |
|
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
D e C I S I O
N
SERENO, J.:
Petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Valenzuela City, Branch 82 in Criminal Case No. 54905 for violating Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) or the Bouncing Checks Law.
It appears that petitioner issued checks to secure the loans obtained
from private respondent. Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored, leading
to the filing with the MeTC of criminal cases docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
54905, 54906, 54907, and 54908 for four (4) counts of violation of B.P. 22.
Subsequently, petitioner settled the loans subject of Criminal Case Nos.
54906, 54907 and 54908 using the funds of the Children of Mary Immaculate
College, of which she was president. Private respondent executed an Affidavit
of Desistance for the three cases;[1]
thus, only Criminal Case No. 54905 covering a check worth, ₱1,500,000, proceeded
to trial.
The MeTC found that all the
following elements of a violation of B.P. 22 were present in the last check
subject of the criminal proceedings: (1) the making,
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the
knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he or she does
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of
the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the drawee banks subsequent
dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the
check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the bank to stop payment.[2] In ruling against
petitioner, the MeTC took note that petitioner admitted knowledge of the
checks dishonor, and that the demand letter with Notice of Dishonor mailed to
petitioners residence on 10 May 1999 was received by one Alfredo Abierra on 14
May 1999. Thus, petitioner was sentenced to pay ₱1,500,000, the amount of
the dishonored check, and a fine of ₱200,000 with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency.
The MeTC also held the Children of Mary Immaculate College liable for the
value of the check for being the drawer thereof. Finally, the court ordered the
payment of attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
On appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), petitioner alleged that
the receipt of the Notice of Dishonor was not sufficiently proven, and that the
notice received by Abierra should not be held to be binding on her. However, on
26 November 2006, the RTC affirmed the Decision of the MeTC.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition for Review with the Court of
Appeals (CA) under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. In her Petition, she alleged
that the trial court erred in ruling that she had received a notice of dishonor
and in holding the school also liable for the value of the check.
The CA ruled that the elements of a violation of B.P. 22 were
established.[3]
However, it held that the trial court erred in holding Children of Mary Immaculate
College civilly liable.
Applying Lunaria v. People,[4]
the CA modified the appealed judgment by imposing legal interest of 12% on the
amount of the dishonored check. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision
states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED in part. The Decision dated November 26, 2006 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 75 of Valenzuela City, is MODIFIED in that petitioner is SENTENCED
to pay a fine of ₱200,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency. Petitioner is ORDERED to
indemnify private complainant in the amount of ₱1,500,000.00, the amount
of the dishonored check, with 12% interest per annum from the date of judicial
demand until the finality of this Decision plus attorneys fees of ₱20,000.00
and litigation expenses of ₱16,860.00. The civil liability adjudged
against Children of Mary Immaculate College is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO
ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner thereafter
filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[6]
Finding no merit in the motion, it was denied by the CA through its assailed
Resolution[7]
promulgated on 10 August 2010.
Hence,
this Rule 45 Petition.
Petitioner now alleges that respondent failed to prove that there was actual
receipt of the notice of dishonor. She also alleges, without expounding, that
the ruling of the CA was not in accordance with laws and jurisprudence.
It is an established rule that the remedy of appeal through a Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contemplates only
questions of law and not questions of fact.[8]
The issue in the case at bar is clearly a question of fact that rightfully
belonged to the proper determination of the MeTC, the RTC and the CA. All these lower courts found the elements of a
violation of B.P. 22 present. Petitioner failed to provide any cogent reason
for us to overturn these findings, or to consider this case as an exception to
this general rule.
However, conforming to prevailing jurisprudence, we find the need to
modify the ruling of the CA with regard to the imposition of interest on the
judgment. It has been established that in the absence of stipulation, the rate
of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, that is,
from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of
Article 1169 of the Civil Code.[9]
In Ongson v. People,[10]
we held that interest began to run from the time of the extrajudicial demand,
as duly proved by the creditor. Thus, petitioner should also be held liable for
the amount of the dishonored check, which is ₱1,500,000, plus 12% legal
interest covering the period from the date of the receipt of the demand letter
on 14 May 1999 to the finality of this Decision. The total amount due in the
dispositive portion of the CAs Decision, inclusive of interest, shall further
earn 12% interest per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully
paid.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Decision dated 27 April 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31349 is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner is ordered to
indemnify private respondent the amount of
the dishonored check, which is ₱1,500,000, with 12% interest per annum from the date of receipt of
the extrajudicial demand on 14 May 1999 to the finality of this Decision. This
total amount inclusive of interest shall further earn 12% interest per annum from the finality of the
Decision until it is fully paid.
Petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of ₱200,000 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus attorneys fees of ₱20,000 and
litigation expenses of ₱16,860.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chairperson
ARTURO D.
BRION JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
Chairperson, Second Division
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
[1] CA Decision, rollo, p. 22.
[2] Tan v. Mendez, 432 Phil. 760 (2002).
[3] Penned by Associate
Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao
and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.
[4] G.R. No. 160127, 11
November 2008, 570 SCRA 572.
[5] Rollo, p. 33.
[6] Id. at 35-45.
[7] Id. at 55-56.
[8] Spouses Batingal v. Court of
Appeals. G.R. No. 128636, 1 February 2001, 351 SCRA 60.
[9] Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, 234 SCRA 78.
[10] 504 Phil. 214 (2005).