FACTS:

The   Board   of   Directors   of   Akron,   which   includes   petitioner   Remo, authorized the purchase of 13 trucks to be used in the business through a resolution.  The president then  of the corporation purchased from private respondent  the  trucks  evinced  by  a  deed  of  absolute  sale,  with  terms  of payment  as  follows—downpayment,  balance  payable  within  60  days  from date  of  execution  of  agreement.    It  was  also  agreed  upon  that  until  said balance, the downpayment shall constitute as rentals for the trucks.  And if there would be failure of payment, the balance shall  constitute as chattel mortgage  lien.    This  is  further  secured  by  a  promissory  note—that  the balance  would  be  paid  from  a  loan  to  be  obtained  from  a  bank.    After several   days,   private   respondent   made   several   demands   but   the
corporation  failed  to  pay.   This  prompted  the  private  respondent  to  file  a complaint.  Meanwhile, petitioner sold his shares to Coprada and the name of the corporation was modified.
 

HELD:

If  the  private  respondent  is  the  victim  of  fraud  in  this  transaction,  it  has not been clearly shown that petitioner had any part or partcipation in the perpetration  of  the  same.    Fraud  must  be  established  by  clear  and convincing  evidenced.    If  at  all,  the  principal  character  on  whom  fault
should  be  attributed  is  the  president  Coprada,  whom  private  respondent dealt with personally all through out.