- CASE DIGEST -
SUBJECT: CORPORATION LAW
Tupaz vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 145578
November 18, 2005
FACTS: Jose C. Tupaz IV - VP for Operations and Petronila C. Tupaz -VP/Treasurer of EL ORO Engraver Corporation, entered into a contract with the AFP - Armed Forces Of The Philippines to supply the latter with “survival bolos.” To finance the purchase of the raw materials for the bolos, The Tupaz’s in behalf of EL ORO Corporation, applied with respondent bank BPI - Bank of the Philippine Islands for 2 commercial Letters of Credit. The LCs were in favor of El Oro Corporation’s suppliers, TANCHAOCO Manufacturing Incorporated.
Simultaneous with the issuance of the LCs, the 2 Tupazes, petitioners hereto signed TRUST RECEIPTS in favor of respondent bank BPI.
Now here comes the issue. Jose C. Tupaz IV signed, in his personal capacity, a trust receipt corresponding to a Letter of Credit for P564,871. The problem was, petitioners did not comply with their undertaking under the TRUST RECEIPTS. Respondent bank naturally made several demands for payments but EL ORO Corporation made partial payments only.
So as a consequence, respondent bank BPI sent final demand letters to EL ORO Corporation where EL ORO replied that it could not fully pay its debt because the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) had delayed paying for the survival bolos. (in short, naipit sya)
Issue: Did
Petitioners herein stated bind themselves personally with regard to the company
debt described when they signed the Trust Receipts?
Held: NO.
No comments:
Post a Comment