Sorongon v. People

 

Sorongon v. People

G.R. No. 230669

June 16, 2021

 

FACTS:

Nelly testified that she and her husband hired Rex Sorongon, a civil engineer, to put up a water system for their water refilling business. Sometime in July 2004, after the project was completed, Rex asked to borrow the subject cement mixer for his project in Iloilo City. Nelly agreed to lend the cement mixer on the condition that Rex would return it as soon as his project was completed. Nelly claimed that Rex, however, failed to return her cement mixer when she demanded it after several months had passed. She asked her lawyer to write a formal demand letter to Rex, but the same also went unheeded. Rex was then charged with Estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC. On the other hand, Rex denied borrowing the cement mixer and was surprised when he was summoned to the barangay after Nelly and her husband had filed a complaint against him about unpaid accounts, which included a cement mixer. Rex corroborated the testimony of Rudy de la Torre, a Barangay Kagawad of Brgy. Sto. Rosario, Guimaras, that he and Nelly reached an amicable settlement before the barangay. Thereafter, however, he received the complaint in the instant case. Minutes of the barangay proceedings provide that Nelly alleged that Rex borrowed from her various equipment such as cement mixer, and when she demanded the return of the same, he failed to. Additionally, she also agreed to waive her ownership of the properties in question in favor of Rex, provided no further case or counter charge will be filed by him. The RTC found Rex guilty of the crime of estafa. On appeal, the CA sustained Rex's conviction. It held that Nelly's act of lending the equipment gave rise to a contract of commodatum between her and Rex; in which case, Rex, as the borrower, did not acquire ownership over the thing borrowed and had the duty to return the same thing to the lender, Nelly.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Rex is guilty of estafa for not returning the equipment to Nelly.

HELD:

No. Here, the original contract of commodatum between the herein parties was effectively novated when they entered into an amicable settlement before the barangay in March 2005, which amicable settlement came about before the Information for Estafa against Rex was filed in January 2006. With Nelly waiving her ownership over the cement mixer in favor of Rex in exchange for the concession that he would refrain from filing any case against her in the future, there was clearly an implied novation of the original contract of commodatum between her and Rex. While ownership by the bailor over the thing loaned is not an indispensable requirement in commodatum as Article 1938 of the Civil Code very well provides that the bailor in commodatum need not be the owner of the thing loaned, it is important to note in this case, however, that the waiver over the ownership of the property, which was the very object of the original contract of the parties, was made in favor of petitioner. This went against a well-established concept in commodatum that ownership of the thing loaned does not pass to the borrower.