Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
A compilation of
CASE DIGESTS
Presented to:
Atty. Oliver Cachapero, Jr.
Submitted by:
3-ALM
24 November 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RIGHTS OF A HOLDER
LIABILITIES OF PARTIES
ii
Issuance of Promissory Note
Checks
Crossed Checks
Estafa
iii
REAL AND PERSONAL DEFENSES
NOTICE OF DISHONOR
Acceleration Clause
PROTEST
iv
FLORES, JOSEF REINARD
LMG05 – Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Requisites of Negotiability
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
3
GEROLAGA, JUAN CARLO
LMG05 – Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Presumption of Consideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:
4
serial numbers of checks, including the dates and amount, was
not disputed by respondent.
ISSUE:
RULING:
5
TEE, JOSHUA JULIUS
LMG05 – Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Presumption of Consideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:
ISSUE:
7
Whether or not the 17 checks, completed and delivered to the
petitioner, are sufficient by themselves to prove the existence of
the loan obligation of the respondents to petitioner.
HELD:
8
contention that the respondents had delivered is clearly contrary
to the evidence on record.
9
DAQUIGAN, DOMINICO JOSE
LMG05 – Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Accommodation Party
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
11
DELA PENA, MARGARET LOUISE B.
LMG05 – Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Holder In Due Course
FACTS:
On May 24, 1994, Marasigan deposited the check and the same
was dishonored by the bank. It was later revealed that the
account had been closed since May 1993. Marasigan sought to
recover from Gutierrez, sent several demand letters, but all were
disregarded by the latter. He then filed a criminal case for
violation of B.P. 22.
12
check’s negotiation, and asserted that he was not privy to the
parties’ loan agreement.
ISSUE:
RULING:
13
CHAVEZ, Ryan Joshua N.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Personal Defense/HIDC
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Odrada is not Holder in due course because not all the requisites
of section 52 were complied with,
XXX
c. that he took it in good faith and for value
XXX
15
BATTUNG III, JUSTO P.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Liability of General Indorsers
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Union Bank pay Lao the value of check NO.
0127-242250, moral damages; exemplary damages; and
attorney's fees.
RULING:
Yes, the Union Bank should pay Lao the amount of ₱336,500.00,
representing the value of Check No. 0127-242250; ₱50,000.00 as
moral damages; ₱l00,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
₱50,000.00 as attorney's fees. The RTC observed that there was
nothing irregular with the transaction of Check No. 0127-242249
because the same was deposited in Everlink's account with
Union Bank. It, however, found that Check No. 0127-242250 was
irregularly deposited and encashed because it was not issued for
the account of Everlink, the payee, but for the account of New
Wave. The trial court noted further that Check No. 0127-242250
was not even endorsed by Everlink to New Wave. Thus, it opined
that Union Bank was negligent in allowing the deposit and
encashment of the said check without proper endorsement.
17
SUDARIO, THERESE
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Issuance of Promissory Notes
FACTS:
ISSUE:
WON Philacor is liable for the DST on the issuance of the PN.
RULING:
20
AMORIN, JOSE LORENZO
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Issuance of Promissory Notes
FACTS:
21
furtherance, The Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision
upon appeal of the two inferior courts but with modification of
lowering the stipulated interest to 12% per annum. The petition
went up to Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
RULING:
22
Furthermore, it is also not within the ambit of Section 70 of the
NIL which provides that presentment for payment is not necessary
to charge the person liable on the instrument. Thus, Rivera is still
liable under the terms of the Promissory Note that he issued to
the spouses Chua.
23
JISON, SAMANTHA GEM
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Checks
FACTS:
ISSUE:
24
HELD:
25
CRUZ, MA. FRANCESSCA O.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Checks
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
26
substantially to be as good as the money it represents.Manager’s
and cashier’s checks are still the subject of clearing to ensure
that the same have not been materially altered or counterfeited.A
cashier’s check is a primary obligation of the issuing bank
and accepted in advance by its mere issuance. In this
case, PCIB by issuing the check created an unconditional
credit in favor of any collecting bank.
27
AQUINO, JHON IVAN
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Crossed Checks
FACTS:
28
against JMC current account and forwarded by her to one
LitaBituin. Delizo further admitted that she, Bituin and an
unknown bank manager colluded to cause the deposit and
encashing of the stolen checks and shared in the proceeds
thereof.
ISSUE:
RULING:
30
MICAY, ALTHEA
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
FACTS:
31
petitioners to SMC was dishonored having been drawn against
insufficient funds.
ISSUE:
RULING:
32
ELLAZO, EMMANUEL
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
FACTS:
ISSUES:
1. Notice of Dishonor
- Whether or not Ma. Rosario P Campos was not
knowledgeable nor notified by the drawee bank that she
had insufficient funds to complete her transaction.
Although, two requisites were present which is the 1.
Issuance of making of a check for an applied amount of
value and 3. The dishonour of a check for insufficiency of
funds.
2. Demands were made
- Whether or not there was a crystal clear fact that there
was a notification of dishonour of check and subsequent
33
demand from the FWCC to Ma. Campos and that Campos
herself willingly tried to reach an amicable settlement in
good faith in order for her debt to be paid.
3. Insufficient Funds from drawing account
- Whether or Not Campos was not notified that her
account was lacking the necessary funds to pay for her
debt with the FWCC. Although there was a notice made
by BPI to FWCC that, the said account was closed and
dishonoured due to the lack of funds by the drawer.
HELD:
34
MAMAYOG, RANIA P.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
FACTS:
35
payment.” The lower courts find the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for Violation of BP 22.
36
PAYOS, THERESA
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
JORGE B. NAVARRA, Petitioner,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI
BANKING CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS:
Navarra is the Chief Finance Officer of Reynolds Philippines
Corporation. The said corporation has been a long time client of
respondent Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
(HSBC). HSBC granted Reynolds a loan line and a foreign
exchange line. Subsequently, Reynolds issued several promissory
notes in HSBC’s favor. In line with this, Reynolds, through
Navarra, issued seven Asia Trust checks amounting to P45.2
million for the payment of its loan obligation. On July 11, 2000,
HSBC presented the said checks for payment but the checks
were dishonored and returned for being “Drawn against
insufficient funds”. On July 21, 2000, the bank sent Reynolds a
notice of dishonor which Navarra received. Navarra then
requested HSBC to reconsider its decision to declare Reynolds in
default. On September 8, 2000, HSBC sent another notice of
dishonor with respect to another check and demanded payment
as well as six other checks which were previously dishonored.
Despite repeated demands, Reynolds refused to pay. In line with
this, HSBC filed cases against Navarra for violation of BP 22
before the MeTC. The MeTC and RTC found Navarra guilty of the
offense charged. Navarra’s petition for review before the CA was
denied due to the failure of Navarra to attach a certification of
non-forum shopping.
ISSUE:
Is Navarra guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of BP 22?
RULING:
YES. There are two ways of violating BP22: (1) by making or
drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value,
37
knowing at the time of issue that the check is not sufficiently
funded; and (2) by having sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank at the time of issue but failing to do so to cover the
amount of the check when presented to the drawee bank within a
period of ninety (90) days. The case falls within the first way of
violating BP 22. Under the first scenario, the following elements
must be present: (1) The making, drawing, and issuance of any
check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the
maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of suck check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor the same reason had
not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
the payment. Navarra argued that the first element is absent as
the checks were presented to reconstruct the loan. This
argument lies in folly since the trial courts have already ruled
that the checks were, in fact, issued for payment of a pre-existing
obligation.
38
DAVID, JOHN VIANNI
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
FACTS:
ISSUES:
RULING:
Enriquez personally saw Ivy signing the promissory note and the
checks, so he is familiar with ivy’s signature as appearing in the
registry receipt, and as the court said “If the service of the written
notice is by registered mail, the proof of service consists not only
in the presentation as evidence of the registry return receipt but
also of the registry receipt together with the authenticating
affidavit of the person mailing the notice of dishonor. Without the
authenticating affidavit, the proof of giving the notice of dishonor
39
is insufficient, unless the mailer personally testifies in court on
the sending thereof by registered mail.
40
CORTEZ, RENNE KRISTEN D.C.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
ELIZABETH ALBURO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
FACTS:
Alburo, with her husband, bought a house and lot from her
sister-in-law through the latter’s attorney-in-fact, Aurelio
Tapang. The house and lot is worth $50,000 or its peso
equivalent. Alburo paid the down payment at the value of &21,
000 while the rest of the balance was paid through four post-
dated checks. The checks bounced, and therefore became the
subject of a criminal case against Alburo for violation of BP Blg.
22. The MTCC found Alburo guilty of violating BP Blg. 22. Both
the RTC and the CA affirmed the lower court’s decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Alburo is liable for violation of BP Blg. 22
RULING:
NO. The RTC failed to mention that petitioner eceived any
notice of dishonor which showed her knowledge that she had
insufficient funds when she issued the checks. The court simply
stated that a representative of Landbank testified that notices of
dishonor were issued. The absence of proof that petitioner
received any notice informing her of the fact that her checks were
dishonored and giving her five banking days within which to
make arrangements for payment of the said checks prevents the
application of the disputable presumption that she had
knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds at the time she issued
the checks. It is a general rule that when service of the notice is
an issue, the person alleging that the notice was served must
prove the fact of the service. The burden of proof rests upon the
party asserting the existence.
41
CLEMENTE, GAMALIEL ADAM B.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
42
B.P. 22 states that the penalty for such erroneous act are the
following: (1) imprisonment of not less than 30 days, but not
more than one year or (2) a fine of not less or more than double
the amount of the check, and shall not exceed ₱200,000.00 or (3)
both such fine and imprisonment.
Here, the face value of each of the six checks that bounced is
₱6,667.00. Under Section 1 of BP 22, the maximum penalty of
fine that can be imposed on petitioner is only 13,334.00, or the
amount double the face value of each check. Indubitably, the
MeTC meted the petitioner a penalty of fine way beyond the
maximum limits prescribed under Section 1 of BP 22. The fine of
₱80,000.00 is more than 11 times the amount of the face value
of each check that was dishonored. Instead of using it as basis of
the face value of each check ₱6,667.00, the MeTC incorrectly
computed the amount of fine using the total face value of the six
checks ₱40,002.00.
43
MORFE, ROIE
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
FACTS:
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Elvira Alivio, the petitioner, violates B.P. Blg.
22
RULING:
45
JUANILLO, JOSHUA
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
FACTS:
46
Palmiery appeared before the MeTC and claimed that assets are
transferred to Palmer and relinquished the business to Palmer
Inc. Magallanes defended that the party actually involved is
Andrews since they hired Palmer to run the business.
ISSUE:
RULING:
The rationale for this rule was discussed in the earlier case of
Goyanko, Jr. v. United Coconut Planters Bank: the accused loses
sight of the fact that Mr. Palmiery is an ordinary layman, not
versed with the technicalities of the law. Expectedly, ordinary
laymen, such as Mr. Palmiery, do not fully appeciate and
understand the legal implications of technical and legal terms.
47
Thus, since Magallanes timely filed a motion to dismiss based on
valid grounds, we rule that the CA erred in denying the said
motion.
SO ORDERED.
48
DOMINGO, ATHENA
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: ESTAFA
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
50
CENON, THEA COLEEN
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: ESTAFA
FACTS:
April 30, 1997, Gilbert Wagas placed an order for 200 bags of
rice over the telephone to Alberto Ligaray but Alberto and his wife
did not agree at first to the proposed payment of the order by
postdated check, but because of Wagas’ assurance that he would
not disappoint them and that he had the means to pay them
because he had a lending business and money in the bank, they
relented and accepted the order. Later on he released the goods
to Wagas on April 30, 1997 and at the same time received Bank
of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check No. 0011003 for
₱200,000.00 payable to cash and postdated May 8, 1997; that he
later deposited the check with Solid Bank, his depository bank,
but the check was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.
Alberto called Wagas about the matter, and the latter told him
that he would pay upon his return to Cebu and that despite
repeated demands, Wagas did not pay him.
51
intended as payment for a portion of Cañada’s property that he
wanted to buy, but when the sale did not push through, he did
not anymore fund the check.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No, Wagas is not liable for estafa. Prosecution did not establish
beyond reasonable doubt that it was Wagas who had defrauded
Ligaray by issuing the check. Firstly, Ligaray expressly admitted
that he did not personally meet the person with whom he was
transacting over the telephone. Ligaray did not personally see
and meet whoever he had dealt with and to whom he had made
the demand for payment. Secondly, the check delivered to Ligaray
was made payable to cash. Under the Negotiable Instruments
Law, this type of check was payable to the bearer and could be
negotiated by mere delivery without the need of an indorsement.
Thirdly, Ligaray admitted that it was Cañada who received the
rice from him and who delivered the check to him. Considering
that the records are bereft of any showing that Cañada was then
acting on behalf of Wagas, the RTC had no factual and legal
bases to conclude and find that Cañada had been acting for
Wagas. But Wagas may still be held civilly liable as the admitted
drawer of the check was legally liable to pay the amount of it to
Ligaray, a holder in due course.
52
TUQUILAR, MARK V.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: ESTAFA
FACTS:
53
presumed that he received the same on the date of the demand
letter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the absence of the date actual receipt on the face
of the demand letter prevented the legal presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds from arising, making herein
petitioner not liable for violation of BP 22.
RULING:
55
MAYUGA, EUNICE ALLAINE
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Delivery, When Effectual and When Presumed
FACTS:
56
not acquire any right or interest in the instruments since the
firm never received them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was delivery as contemplated in Section 16
ofthe NIL.
HELD:
Yes. In order to resolve whether the Complaintlackeda cause
of action, respondent must have presented evidence to dispute
the presumption that the signatories validly and intentionally
delivered the instrument.
Therefore, the Court ruled thatit was erroneous for the RTC
to have concluded that there was no delivery, just because the
checks did not reach the payee. It failed to consider Section 16 of
the Negotiable Instruments Law, which envisions instances when
instruments may have been delivered to a person other than the
payee. Pursuant to the last sentence of Section 16 of the NIL,
where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party
whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery
by him is presumed until the contrary is proved
The SC, however, stressed that a complaint cannot be
dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of action because the
issue may only be raised after questions of fact have been
resolved in a full-blown trial.
57
PENOLIO, AIRRA MAE
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Forged Signature
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Kho can invoke forgery in order to cancel check No. 07410
and release the remaining money in his account. The genuine
check No. 07410 remained in Kho’s possession the entire time
and Land Bank admits that the check it cleared was a fake.
When Land Bank’s CCD forwarded the deposited check to its
Araneta branch for inspection, its officers had every opportunity
to recognize the forgery of their signatures or the falsity of the
check. Whether by error or neglect, the bank failed to do so,
which led to the withdrawal and eventual loss of the
₱25,000,000.00. Land Bank breached its duty of diligence and
assumed the risk of incurring a loss on account of a forged or
counterfeit check. Hence, it should suffer the resulting
damage.Kho is not precluded from invoking the forgery. A drawer
or a depositor of the bank is precluded from asserting the forgery
if the drawee bank can prove his failure to exercise ordinary care
and if this negligence substantially contributed to the forgery or
the perpetration of the fraud.Kho’s act of giving Medel a
59
photocopy of the check may have allowed the latter to create a
duplicate, this cannot possibly excuse Land Bank’s failure to
recognize that the check itself –not just the signatures – is a fake
instrument. More importantly, Land Bank itself furnished Kho
the photocopy without objecting to the latter’s intention of giving
it to Medel.
60
ALBANO, ANGELICA R.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Material Alteration
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
62
PALANCA, NAOMI C.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Acceleration Clause
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
63
YES. It has long been settled that acceleration clause is valid and
produces legal effects. In the case at bench, the promissory note
explicitly stated that default in any of the installments shall
make the entire obligation due and demandable even without
notice or demand. Thus, the court held that KTCSI was
erroneous in saying that PSB’s complaint was premature on the
ground that the loan was due only on October 12,2011. KT
Construction’s entire obligation became due and demandable
when it failed to pay an installment pursuant to the acceleration
clause.
64
DE LEON, JOSHUA MARTIN C.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Time within which Notice must be given
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
65
Yes
The requirement is taken strictly due to the fact that on the B.P
22 The drawer is given the opportunity to give effect full payment
of the amount that is written on said check, within 5 banking
days from the notice of dishonor. Procedural due process
demands that the notice of dishonor shall serve on the petitioner
in order to fulfill the requirement. It is important that the notice
should be sent and received by her to afford her opportunity to
aver prosecution under the bouncing check law however it is not
an element of the offense, evidence that the notice of dishonor
has been sent or received.
66
CABRERA, DANIEL ANTHONY L.
Negotiable Instruments Law
TOPIC: Discharge of a Negotiable Instrument
FACTS:
In 1991, Benjamin Evangelista obtained a loan from the
respondent Screenex, Inc. in the amount of P1,500,000.00. As
security for the payment of the loan, Evangelista gave two open-
dated UCPB Check Nos. 616656 and 616657, both payable to the
order of Screenex, Inc. The checks were safe kept together with
all other documents and papers by Philip Gotuaco, Sr, father-in-
law of respondent Alexander Yu, until his death on November 19,
2004. Before the checks were deposited, respondent Yu,
through counsel, sent a demand letter to Evangelista demanding
payment. Thereafter, petitioner Evangelista was charged for
violation of BP 22 before Branch 61 of the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Makati (MeTC). The complaint alleged that the
Petitioner, at the time of the issuance of the checks, know fully
well, that he did not have sufficient funds in the drawee bank for
the payment of the checks in full. When the checks were
presented, they were dishonored by the drawee bank for the
reason “Account Closed” and despite receipt of notice of
dishonor, Evangelista failed to pay the said checks or make
arrangement for full payment within five banking days after
receipt of notice.
ISSUES:
a) Whether or not the checks or obligations have been discharged
and/or barred by prescription?
b) Whether or not Petitioner Evangelista is still liable to pay the
obligation of P1,500,000.00?
RULING:
SC reversed the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of
the petitioner, Evangelista. Evangelista is considered to have
been discharged from his obligation to pay the amount of P1.5M,
in accordance with Section 119 of the Negotiable Instruments
Law, which provides that “a negotiable instrument like a check
may be discharged by any other act which will discharge a simple
contract for the payment of money”. A check is subject to
prescription of actions upon a written contract and must be
brought within ten years from the time the right of actions
accrues (Article 1144, New Civil Code).
68