ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2339-P. August 16, 2006]

CARLOTA M. DAVID-DAGDAG v. ALLEN FRANCISCO SICAT, SHERIFF III, MTCC-OCC, ANGELES CITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 16, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2339-P (Carlota M. David-Dagdag v. Allen Francisco Sicat, Sheriff III, MTCC-OCC, Angeles City)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

In a COMPLAINT dated November 18, 2005, complainant Carlota M. David-Dagdag alleged that respondent Sheriff Allen Francisco Sicat obtained from her a loan in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) which was given in Manager's Check purchased from the Bank of the Philippine Islands-Family Bank (BPI-Family), Angeles City Branch.

Complainant alleged that respondent sheriff informed her that the amount loaned shall be used in the hauling of filling materials to the PNCC for the widening and expansion of roads, expenses for quarry operations. Subsequently, respondent allegedly persuaded complainant to join him in that venture though the loan agreement shall subsists. Respondent further assured complainant a minimum of 50 truckloads of haul a day, or a profit of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) daily, payable on weekly basis.

Relying on the assurances of respondent sheriff, complainant extended the latter a loan in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). Corollarily, respondent prepared a document that complainant thought was a promissory note. However, a "partnership contract" was instead executed which complainant nonetheless signed relying on respondent's trustworthiness, honesty and integrity.

However, respondent never paid complainant even a single centavo by way of profit or interest which resulted in complainant's failure to pay the loan obligation and the eventual foreclosure of complainant's house.

Upon pleas made on respondent, payments on a staggered basis were made. The first and second payments were made on 14 June 2004 in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and Twenty Thousand Pesos [P20,000.00], respectively, at the Municipal Trial Court. Thereafter, the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) was sent at the complainant's house through an emissary; another Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) was paid personally by respondent and the most recent was in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). Thereafter, despite repeated demands for him to pay the remaining balance of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), respondent failed to pay his obligation.

By way of ANSWER dated February 8, 2006, respondent sheriff vehemently denies each and every allegation against him. Respondent sheriff avers that he came to know the complainant only when the latter was introduced to him by their common friend. Respondent alleged that complainant then was interested to venture in the on-going hauling projects relative to the widening of North Luzon Expressway. It is for this reason why they were introduced since respondent was engaged then, albeit indirectly, into said hauling projects.

Subsequently, after having been informed of the projected income based on the representation of BGR Enterprises, subcontractor of BSP Construction, the latter being the contractor of the said project, complainant agreed to invest the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). Thereafter, respondent sheriff alleged that he and complainant entered into a PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT. (Annex "B" of the COMPLAINT). Because of this, BGR Enterprises, through its owner/proprietor Arnel G. Rimando, contracted the partnership of complainant and respondent to haul and deliver construction materials to the construction site.

However, respondent avers that the project and the expected income from the said hauling project of their partnership did not materialize because of many unexpected expenses incurred in the operation thereof and the delayed payments made by BGR Enterprises. To aggravate the situation further, the partnership has many uncollected deliveries from BGR Enterprises, which remains unsettled up to the present.

EVALUATION:

A loan is a contract wherein a person who receives money is bound to pay the creditor an equal amount of the same kind or quality. (Article 1953, Civil Code)

Respondent Sheriff Sicat received from the complainant a Manager's Check in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) in virtue of a contract executed by the parties denominated as PARTNERSHIP (Annex "B" of the COMPLAINT) for hauling of filling materials to PNCC. In the said partnership contract, it was stipulated that the complainant shall provide P200,000.00 for operation and payment of quarry and trucks after deliveries of materials to the site and the former shall receive the amount of [One Hundred Pesos] (P100.00) net profit per truckload.

The contract entered into was not a loan agreement but it is akin to a Joint Venture Agreement to haul filling materials wherein the complainant had to provide the capital. The contract was written in simple and clear language where the intention of the parties was clearly stated. The contract did not say that after the hauling job is done, respondent shall return the P200,000.00 to the complainant.

The alleged partnership entered into by the complainant and respondent was a valid contract for there was meeting of the minds, the subject matter was hauling of filling materials and the consideration was for the complainant to provide P200,000.00 for operation and payment of quarry and trucks, and she will receive the amount of P100.00 per truckload delivered.

RECOMMENDATION:

Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court is our recommendation that this case be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.

From the facts obtaining in this case, there arises an issue as to whether the transaction between the complainant and respondent is a contract of loan or a partnership. This issue is best adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction. Pending resolution thereof, the liability of the respondent can not be determined. Herein administrative case is premature.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Sheriff Allen Francisco Sicat is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE