MESINA v.
IAC
Private Respondents: Jose Go and Albert Uy
Topic: Rights of a Holder
FACTS:
Respondent Go purchased from Associated Bank Cashier’s check for P800K
but he unfortunately left said check on top of the desk of the bank manager
when he left the bank.
The bank manager entrusted the check for safekeeping to bank official,
Albert Uy, who then had a visitor, Alexander Lim.
Uy had had to answer a phone call and went to the men’s room after 
when he returned to his desk, Lim was already gone
When Go inquired his checl from Uy, the check was not in his folder and
nowhere to be found  Go accomplished a “STOP PAYMENT” order and
executed an affidavit of loss while Uy went to the police station to report the
loss of the check, pointing Lim as the one who stole it
Associated Bank received the lost check for clearing, coming from Prudential
Bank, and was immediately dishonored, sending it back to the latter with the
words “Payment Stopped” stamped on it
 this happened twice
Several days later, a certain Atty. Navaro demanded the payment on the
cashier’s check in question which was being held by his client, whose name
he refused to disclose, and threatened to sue if payment is not made 
Respondent bank in a letter said that the said check belonged to Go
Later, the name of Marcelo Mesina was revealed. When asked by the police
on how he possessed the check, he said it was paid to him by Lim in a
certain transaction.
An information for theft was then filed against Lim.
Petitioner Mesina claims that he is a holder in due course and that a
cashier’s check is a bill of exchange drawn by the bank against itself are
general principles which cannot be aptly applied to the case ate bar.
Issue: Is Mesina a holder in due course? - NO
Held:
- Sec. 52. What constitutes a holder in due course. - A holder in due course
is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions:
(a) That it is complete and regular upon its face;
(b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without
notice that it has been previously dishonored, if such was the fact;
(c) That he took it in good faith and for value;
(d) That at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any
infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.
-Mesina failed to substantiate his claim that he is a holder in due course and
for consideration or value as shown by the established facts of the case
-He became the holder of the cashier's check as endorsed by Lim who stole
the check and he refused to say how and why it was passed to him  he
had therefore notice of the defect of his title over the check from the start
-The holder of a cashier's check who is not a holder in due course cannot
enforce such check against the issuing bank which dishonors the same
-If a payee of a cashier's check obtained it from the issuing bank by fraud, or
if there is some other reason why the payee is not entitled to collect the
check, the respondent bank would, of course, have the right to refuse
payment of the check when presented by the payee, since respondent bank
was aware of the facts surrounding the loss of the check in question
-Jose Go owns the money it represents and he is therefore the drawer and
the drawee in the same manner as if he has a current account and he issued
a check against it
-From the moment said cashier's check was lost and/or stolen no one
outside of Jose Go can be termed a holder in due course because Jose Go
had not indorsed it in due course  The check in question suffers from the
infirmity of not having been properly negotiated and for value by respondent
Jose Go who as already been said is the real owner of said instrument