Sei sulla pagina 1di 2





G.R. No. 172954


 North Star is a corporation engaged in the travel agency business while petitioner is the
owner/general manager of JEAC International Management and Contractor Services, a
recruitment agency.
 On March 17, 1994, Virginia Balagtas, the General Manager of North Star, in accommodation
and upon the instruction of its client, petitioner herein, sent the amount of US$60,000 to View
Sea Ventures Ltd., in Nigeria from her personal account in Citibank Makati.
 On March 29, 1994, Virginia again sent US$40,000 to View Sea Ventures by telegraphic
transfer,with US$15,000 coming from petitioner.
 Likewise, on various dates, North Star extended credit to petitioner for the airplane tickets of his
clients, with the total amount of such indebtedness under the credit extensions eventually
reaching P510,035.47.
 To cover payment of the foregoing obligations, petitioner issued five checks to North Star.
 When presented for payment, the checks in the amount of P1,500,000 and P35,000 were
dishonored for insufficiency of funds while the other three checks were dishonored because of a
stop payment order from petitioner.
 North Star demanded payment, but petitioner failed to settle his obligations. Hence, North Star
instituted Criminal case charging petitioner with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, or the
Bouncing Checks Law.
 After trial, the MeTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of B.P. 22.
 On appeal, the RTC acquitted petitioner of the criminal charges. The RTC also held that there is
no basis for the imposition of the civil liability on petitioner.
 CA reversed the decision of the RTC insofar as the civil aspect is concerned and held petitioner
civilly liable for the value of the subject checks.


Whether the CA erred in holding him civilly liable to North Star for the value of the checks.


Petitioner argues that the CA erred in holding him civilly liable to North Star for the value of the checks
since North Star did not give any valuable consideration for the checks. Respondent North Star, for its
part, counters that petitioner is liable for the value of the five subject checks as they were issued for value.

Supreme Court held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is
presumed that the same was issued for valuable consideration which may consist either in some right,
interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment,
loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side.
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, it is presumed that every party to an instrument acquires the
same for a consideration or for value. As petitioner alleged that there was no consideration for the
issuance of the subject checks, it devolved upon him to present convincing evidence to overthrow the
presumption and prove that the checks were in fact issued without valuable consideration. Sadly,
however, petitioner has not presented any credible evidence to rebut the presumption, as well as North
Stars assertion, that the checks were issued as payment for the US$85,000 petitioner owed.

It is to be noted that the checks subject matter of the instant case were issued in the name of North Star
International Inc., represented by private complainant Virginia Balagtas in replacement of the amount of
dollars remitted by the latter to Vie[w] Sea Ventures in Nigeria. x x x But Virginia Balagtas has no
business transaction with Vie[w] Sea Ventures where accused has been sending his contract workers and
the North Star provided the trip tickets for said workers sent by the accused. North Star International has
no participation at all in the transaction between accused and the Vie[w] Sea Ventures except in providing
plane ticket used by the contract workers of the accused upon its understanding with the latter. The
contention of the accused that the dollars were sent by Virginia Balagtas to Nigeria as business
investment has not been shown by any proof to set aside the foregoing negative presumptions, thus
negates accused contentions regarding the absence of consideration for the issuance of checks.