REMO V. COURT OF APPEALS
172 SCRA 405
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.