The Supreme Court has clarified that corporate officers can be held criminally liable for violations of the Trust Receipts Law (Presidential Decree No. 115) even if they did not directly misappropriate funds, emphasizing that the law is a malum prohibitum. This ruling serves as a stern warning to corporate officers about their responsibilities in ensuring compliance with trust receipt agreements, as failure to do so can lead to personal criminal liability, regardless of intent.

Breach of Trust: When Corporate Duties Lead to Criminal Charges

This case revolves around Jose Antonio U. Gonzalez, the Chairman and CEO of Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation (MLRC), and Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). MLRC, through Gonzalez, entered into two trust receipt agreements with HSBC for golfing equipment and Walt Disney items. When MLRC failed to either pay for the goods or return them, HSBC filed a criminal complaint against Gonzalez for estafa, specifically for violating Presidential Decree No. 115, in relation to Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The central legal question is whether Gonzalez, as a corporate officer, could be held personally liable for the corporation’s failure to comply with the trust receipt agreements.

The legal battle began when HSBC filed a complaint after MLRC failed to meet its obligations under two trust receipts. Gonzalez argued that he acted only in his corporate capacity and that the transactions were essentially loan agreements, not trust receipts. He also claimed that the failure to pay was due to the Asian economic crisis and the closure of a casino owned by MLRC, which severely affected the company’s finances. The City Prosecutor of Makati, however, found probable cause to indict Gonzalez, a decision affirmed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and later by the Court of Appeals.

At the heart of the matter is Presidential Decree No. 115, also known as the Trust Receipts Law. Section 4 of this law defines a trust receipt transaction as:

Section 4. What constitutes a trust receipts transaction. – A trust receipt transaction, within the meaning of this Decree, is any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter’s execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a “trust receipt” wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt…

This definition highlights the entrustee’s obligation to either remit the proceeds of the sale or return the goods if unsold. Failure to comply with this obligation can lead to charges of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as explicitly stated in Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 115:

Section 13. Penalty clause. – The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three Hundred and Fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act Numbered Three Thousand Eight Hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code.  If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution for violation of the Trust Receipts Law does not require proof of intent to defraud. The offense is considered malum prohibitum, meaning that the mere commission of the act—failure to turn over proceeds or return goods—is sufficient to constitute the crime. This principle sets it apart from other forms of estafa where fraudulent intent must be proven.

Gonzalez argued that he should not be held personally liable since he signed the trust receipts as a corporate officer and did not personally misappropriate the goods. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing the explicit provision in Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law that holds responsible officers of corporations liable for violations. This provision is crucial because it recognizes that corporations, as juridical entities, cannot be imprisoned. Therefore, the law extends liability to those individuals within the corporation who have the authority and responsibility to ensure compliance.

Furthermore, the Court underscored the principle of non-interference in preliminary investigations. Courts generally defer to the prosecutor’s determination of probable cause unless there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the Court found no such abuse, as the prosecutor had sufficient evidence—including the trust receipts signed by Gonzalez and MLRC’s failure to fulfill its obligations—to establish probable cause.

The Court also dismissed Gonzalez’s defense that the transaction was essentially a loan agreement, stating that such arguments are best addressed during the trial. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is not to conduct a full-blown trial but to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a corporate officer could be held criminally liable for violations of the Trust Receipts Law when the corporation fails to comply with the terms of a trust receipt agreement. The court addressed the extent of liability for corporate officers under PD 115.
What is a trust receipt transaction?	A trust receipt transaction is an agreement where a bank (entruster) releases goods to another party (entrustee) who agrees to hold the goods in trust for the bank, with the obligation to sell them and remit the proceeds to the bank, or return the goods if unsold. This is defined under Section 4 of the Trust Receipts Law.
What is the legal basis for holding corporate officers liable?	Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law explicitly states that if a corporation violates the law, the responsible directors, officers, employees, or other officials can be held liable. This provision ensures accountability since a corporation itself cannot be imprisoned.
Is intent to defraud necessary to be proven for a violation of the Trust Receipts Law?	No, the Trust Receipts Law is considered malum prohibitum, meaning the mere act of failing to turn over the proceeds of the sale or return the goods is sufficient to constitute a violation, regardless of intent. This simplifies prosecution and underscores the law’s strict enforcement.
What is the role of preliminary investigation in such cases?	A preliminary investigation determines whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is likely guilty. It is not a trial but a preliminary step to decide whether to file charges.
What defenses did Gonzalez raise?	Gonzalez argued that he acted only in his corporate capacity, the transaction was a loan agreement, and the failure to pay was due to economic factors. He also claimed lack of intent to defraud, but these arguments were deemed insufficient to dismiss the charges at the preliminary stage.
Why did the Court of Appeals uphold the DOJ’s decision?	The Court of Appeals upheld the DOJ’s decision because there was no grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict Gonzalez, given his signature on the trust receipts and the failure to fulfill the obligations under the agreement. The court deferred to the prosecutor’s judgment in the absence of clear abuse.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for corporate officers?	This ruling underscores that corporate officers must exercise diligence in ensuring compliance with trust receipt agreements, as they can be held personally liable for violations, even if they did not directly benefit from or misappropriate the funds. This promotes greater corporate responsibility.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. HSBC reinforces the strict enforcement of the Trust Receipts Law and the personal accountability of corporate officers. It serves as a reminder that ignorance of the law or reliance on economic downturns is not a valid excuse for non-compliance. Corporate officers must ensure that their companies fulfill their obligations under trust receipt agreements to avoid potential criminal liability.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 164904, October 19, 2007