[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Banking Soriano Vs People

Soriano v. People concerns a case where Hilario Soriano, the former president of Rural Bank of San Miguel, was alleged to have facilitated an unauthorized P8 million loan to spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos, who claimed to have never applied for or received such a loan. The issue was whether this constituted a violation of Section 83, which prohibits bank officers from indirectly securing loans. The Supreme Court held that Section 83 applies even if the loan is secured indirectly or in someone else's name, as long as the bank officer benefits. As the documents indicated Soriano benefited from the unauthorized loan, all elements of a Section 83 violation were present.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
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
1K views1 page

Banking Soriano Vs People

Soriano v. People concerns a case where Hilario Soriano, the former president of Rural Bank of San Miguel, was alleged to have facilitated an unauthorized P8 million loan to spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos, who claimed to have never applied for or received such a loan. The issue was whether this constituted a violation of Section 83, which prohibits bank officers from indirectly securing loans. The Supreme Court held that Section 83 applies even if the loan is secured indirectly or in someone else's name, as long as the bank officer benefits. As the documents indicated Soriano benefited from the unauthorized loan, all elements of a Section 83 violation were present.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
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/ 1

Soriano v.

People
G.R. No. 162336 February 1, 2010

Facts:

Five affidavits were transmitted by the Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of the BSP to the
DOJ, which was attached with five affidavits, which would allegedly serve as bases for filing
criminal charges for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents, in relation to PD No.
1689, and for Violation of Section 83 of RA 337, as amended by PD 1795, against, petitioner
Hilario P. Soriano. These, along with other documents, stated that spouses Enrico and Amalia
Carlos appeared to have an outstanding loan of P8 million with the Rural Bank of San Miguel,
Inc. (RBSM), but had never applied for nor received such loan; that it was petitioner, who was
then president of RBSM who had ordered, facilitated, and received the proceeds of the loan;
and that the P8 million loan had never been authorized by RBSM’s Board of Directors and no
report thereof had ever been submitted to the Department of Rural Banks, Supervision and
Examination Sector of the BSP.

Issue:

Whether or not there’s a DOSRI violation in such a situation wherein the accused bank officer
did not secure a loan in his own name, but was alleged to have used the name of another
person in order to indirectly secure a loan from the bank.

Held:

Yes.

Section 83 covers loans by a bank director or officer which are made either: (1) directly, (2)
indirectly, (3) for himself, (4) or as the representative or agent of others. It applies even if the
director or officer is a mere guarantor, indorser or surety for someone else's loan or is in any
manner an obligor for money borrowed from the bank or loaned by it.

Here, securing the loan was indirect; names petitioner as the benefactor of the indirect loan;
and states that the requirements of the law were not complied with. It contains all the required
elements for a violation of Section 83, even if petitioner did not secure the loan in his own
name.

You might also like