Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Policy Considerations
To Encourage and Promote
To Regulate Transactions
To Punish Misuse
Parties
Entruster Entrustee
Rights of Entruster
1. Right to Proceeds 2. Right to Cancel 3. Not Principal or Vendor
TRANSACTION CYCLE
Entruster turns over the goods/documents to Entrustee
Entrustee turns over the profit to the entrustor/returns the goods or documents not sold
Entrustee issues a trust receipt over the goods/documents received from the Entrustor
Entrustee sells/dispose the goods/documents according to the terms of the trust receipt
People v. Yu Chai Ho (1928) I/We hereby agree to hold said goods in trust for the said corporation, and as its property with liberty to sell the same for its account, but without authority to make any other disposition whatever of the said goods or any part thereof (or to proceeds thereof) either by way of conditional sale, pledge, or otherwise. In case of sale I/We further agree to hand the proceeds, as soon as received, to the International Banking Corporation to apply against the relative acceptances (as described above) and for the payment of any other indebtedness of mine/ours to the International Banking Corporation.
Cases
Ong v. Court of Appeals
Lee v. Rodil The liability for estafa of an entrustee in a trust receipt agreement who disposes of the goods covered by it but fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale to the bank The petitioner has failed to make out a strong case that P.D. 115 conflicts with the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for non-payment of debt. The criminal liability springs from the violation of the trust receipt. The legislative intent to meet a pressing need is clearly expressed. We see no unconstitutionality in the means deliberately employed to enforce the integrity of trust receipts.
Sia v. People The issue raised is whether petitioner Jose O. Sia, having only acted for and in behalf of the Metal Manufacturing Company of the Philippines as President thereof in dealing with the Continental Bank, he may be liable for the crime charged. A corporation is an artificial person, an abstract being. If the defense theory is followed unscrupulously legions would form corporations to commit swindle right and left where nobody could be convicted, for it would be futile and ridiculous to convict an abstract being that cannot be pinched and confined in jail like a natural, living person, hence the result of the defense theory would be hopeless chose in business and finance. It is completely untenable.
Sia v. People The next question is whether the violation of a trust receipt constitutes estafa under Art. 315 (1-[2]) of the Revised Penal Code, as also raised by the petitioner. The parties are deemed to have consciously entered into a purely commercial transaction that could give rise only to civil liability, never to subject the "entrustee" to criminal prosecution. We consider the view that the trust receipt arrangement gives rise only to civil liability as the more feasible, before the promulgation of P.D. 115.