Scribd
Upload
59 views1 page

Case No. 1 Laurel v. Abrogar G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009 Facts

PLDT filed a complaint against Baynet for theft of its business by offering phone cards allowing calls from Japan to the Philippines using PLDT's facilities. The Supreme Court held that PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is not considered personal property under the Revised Penal Code since it is intangible and without form or substance. The term "personal property" in the theft provision should be interpreted according to the Civil Code's definition of real and personal property.

Uploaded by

angelo6ching
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
59 views1 page

Case No. 1 Laurel v. Abrogar G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009 Facts

PLDT filed a complaint against Baynet for theft of its business by offering phone cards allowing calls from Japan to the Philippines using PLDT's facilities. The Supreme Court held that PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is not considered personal property under the Revised Penal Code since it is intangible and without form or substance. The term "personal property" in the theft provision should be interpreted according to the Civil Code's definition of real and personal property.

Uploaded by

angelo6ching
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

CASE NO.

Laurel v. Abrogar

G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009

Facts:

PLDT filed a complaint for theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code against Baynet
Co., Ltd. (Baynet) for stealing its business. PLDT alleged that Baynet offered phone cards to
people in Japan to call their friends and relatives in the Philippines using PLDT's facilities and
equipment.

Issue:

Whether PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is a personal property


under Art. 308 of RPC

Held:

No, PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is not a personal. PLDT's


business is intangible and cannot be taken by another and not the proper subjects of theft
because they are without form or substance. Term personal property as used in Art. 308 of
RPC should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code's definition of real and personal
property.

You might also like