Gosiaco vs Ching

GR No. 173807
Jaime Gosiaco, as an investmednt, granted a loan to ASB Holdingsfor a period of 48 days with a 10.5%
interest or 112,000
ASB issued 2 checks to cover the loan and the interest drawnagainst DBS Bank Makati
Gosiaco went to DBS San Juan branch to deposit the checks uponmaturity but they were DISHONORED
due to a STOP PAYMENTORDER and INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS
Gosiaco informed ASB 2x about the dishonor and DEMANDEDREPLACEMENT CHECKS or
RETURN OF THE MONEY but to no availhence a complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed with MTCSan Juan
Ching was arraigned but Casta remained at large
Ching:denied liability, mere employee of ASBno knowledge how much money ASB had in the banksresponsibility to check how much was with other dept
Gosiaco moved to implead ASB and its President Roxas but wasdenied because case had already been
submitted for final decision
MTC: Ching ACQUITTED of criminal liability but NOT ABSOLVED fromcivil liabilityas a corporate officer of ASB, she is CIVILLY LIABLE SINCESHE WAS A SIGNATORY TO THE
CHECKS
both parties appealed ot the RTCGosiaco: MTC failed to hold ASB and Roxas jointly orseverally liable with ChingChing: no civil liability because they were contractualobligations of ASB
RTC: CHING NO CIVIL LIABILITY (obligation fell squarely on ASB), butstill DENIED the motion to
implead ASB and Roxas

Gosiaco appeal to CA: RTC ERRED IN ABSOLVING CHING andupholding to not implead ASB and
Roxas and in refusing to piercethe corporate veil of ASB and hold Roxas liable
CA: RTC DECISION AFFIRMEDamount to be recovered was a loan to ASB AND NOT TOCHINGRoxas testimony: checks issued by Ching were for and inbehalf of ASB-ASB CANNOT BE IMPLEADED IN A BP 22 CASE SINCE IT'SNOT A NATURAL PERSON-Roxas under PI-no need to pierce corp veil since no requisites werepresent
-appeal to SC via rule 45-WON a corporate officer who signed a bouncing check iscivilly liable under BP 22-WON ASB can be impleaded in a BP 22 case-WON there's a basis to pierce the corporate veil of ASB
Held: DENIED, without prejudice to the right of petitioner Jaime U.Gosiaco to pursue an independent
civil action against ASB HoldingsInc. for the amount of the subject checks
-BP 22, Section 1 says:-Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company orentity, the person or persons, who actually signed
the checkin behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
-punishes the act of making and issuing bouncing checks. It is theact itself of issuing the checks which is
considered malumprohibitum, covers all types of checks.
-a corporate officer who issues a worthless check in the corporatename he may be held personally liable
and he cannot shield himself from liability from his own acts on the ground that it was acorporate act and
not his personal act
-HOWEVER, THE GENERAL RULE IS: a corporate officer who issues abouncing corporate check can
only be held civilly liable when he isconvicted

-Bautista v. Auto Plus Traders Inc: civil liability of a corporate officerin a B.P. Blg. 22 case is
extinguished with the criminal liability
-hence, by principle of stare decisis, we follow this precedent andAFFIRM THE DISCHARGE OF
CHING OF ANY CIVIL LIABILITY ARISINGFROM THE BP 22 CASE FILED AGAINST HER, ON
ACCOUNT OF HERACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CHARGE