Scribd
Upload
236 views2 pages

Gosiaco v. Ching and Casta, GR 173807, April 16, 2009 Facts

Petitioner invested P8,000,000 with ASB Holdings in exchange for two checks issued by ASB manager Ching. When petitioner attempted to deposit the checks, they bounced due to insufficient funds. Petitioner sued Ching and ASB for the amount but the courts ruled Ching was not personally liable as the debt was ASB's contractual obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision and denied piercing ASB's corporate veil, but allowed petitioner to pursue a separate civil case against ASB.

Uploaded by

Roselle Lagamayo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
236 views2 pages

Gosiaco v. Ching and Casta, GR 173807, April 16, 2009 Facts

Petitioner invested P8,000,000 with ASB Holdings in exchange for two checks issued by ASB manager Ching. When petitioner attempted to deposit the checks, they bounced due to insufficient funds. Petitioner sued Ching and ASB for the amount but the courts ruled Ching was not personally liable as the debt was ASB's contractual obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision and denied piercing ASB's corporate veil, but allowed petitioner to pursue a separate civil case against ASB.

Uploaded by

Roselle Lagamayo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Gosiaco v.

Ching and Casta, GR 173807,


April 16, 2009
FACTS
petitioner Jaime Gosiaco (petitioner) invested P8,000,000.00 with ASB Holdings, Inc. (ASB) by
way of loan.

In exchange, ASB through its Business

Development Operation Group manager Ching, issued DBS checks

The checks, both signed by Ching, were drawn against DBS Bank Makati Head Office branch.
ASB, through a letter... acknowledged that it owed petitioner the abovementioned amounts.

Upon maturity of the ASB checks, petitioner went to the DBS Bank San Juan Branch to deposit
the two (2) checks. However, upon presentment, the checks were dishonored and payments were
refused because of a stop payment order and for insufficiency of funds.

Petitioner informed... respondents,... about the dishonor of the checks and demanded replacement
checks or the return of the money placement but to no avail. Thus, petitioner filed a criminal
complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22... before the Metropolitan Trial Court... bout the dishonor
of the checks and demanded replacement checks or the return of the money placement but to no
avail. Thus, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22... before the
Metropolitan Trial Court... the MTC acquitted Ching of criminal liability but it did not absolve
her from civil liability. The MTC ruled that Ching, as a corporate officer of ASB, was civilly
liable since she was a signatory to the checks.

Petitioner appealed to the RTC on the ground that the MTC failed to hold ASB and Roxas either
jointly or severally liable with Ching.

On the other hand, Ching... filed her notice of appeal on the ground that she should not be held
civilly liable for the bouncing checks because they were contractual obligations of ASB.

he RTC rendered its decision sustaining Ching's appeal. The RTC affirmed the MTC's ruling
which denied the motion to implead ASB and Roxas for lack of jurisdiction over their persons.
The RTC also exonerated Ching from civil liability and ruled that the subject... obligation fell
squarely on ASB.

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals... the Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the RTC and stated that the amount petitioner sought to recover was a loan made
to ASB and not to Ching.

The
Court of Appeals ruled that ASB cannot be impleaded in a B.P. Blg. 22 case since it is not a
natural person and in the case of Roxas, he was not the subject of a preliminary investigation.
Lastly, the Court of Appeals ruled that there was no need to pierce the corporate veil of

ASB since none of the requisites were present.

ISSUES
Petitioner raised the following issues: (1) is a corporate officer who signed a bouncing check
civilly liable under B.P. Blg. 22; (2) can a corporation be impleaded in a B.P. Blg. 22 case; and
(3) is there a basis to pierce the corporate veil of ASB?

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without prejudice to the right of petitioner Jaime U.


Gosiaco to pursue an independent civil action against ASB Holdings Inc. for the amount of the
subject checks, in accordance with the terms of this decision. No pronouncements as to costs.

You might also like