Scribd
Upload
31 views1 page

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

PLDT filed a complaint against Baynet for stealing its business by offering phone cards to people in Japan to call the Philippines using PLDT's facilities. The court held that PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is not considered personal property under the Revised Penal Code and therefore cannot be the subject of theft. The court interpreted personal property in the context of the Civil Code's definition of real and personal property. PLDT's intangible business is not capable of appropriation and does not have physical form or substance, so it cannot be stolen.

Uploaded by

Lorenzo Hammer
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
31 views1 page

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

PLDT filed a complaint against Baynet for stealing its business by offering phone cards to people in Japan to call the Philippines using PLDT's facilities. The court held that PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is not considered personal property under the Revised Penal Code and therefore cannot be the subject of theft. The court interpreted personal property in the context of the Civil Code's definition of real and personal property. PLDT's intangible business is not capable of appropriation and does not have physical form or substance, so it cannot be stolen.

Uploaded by

Lorenzo Hammer
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

Laurel v.

Abrogar

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

Facts:

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (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 or not the PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is a personal property
under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

Held:

No, PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is not a personal property under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

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. Consequently, any personal property,
tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation may be the subject of
theft so long as the same is not included in the enumeration of Real Properties under the Civil
Code. The only requirement for personal property to capable of theft, is that it be subject to
appropriation.

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.

You might also like