9/16/2016

G.R.No.187769

TodayisFriday,September16,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.187769June4,2014
ALVINPATRIMONIO,Petitioner,
vs.
NAPOLEONGUTIERREZandOCTAVIOMARASIGANIII,Respondents.
DECISION
BRION,J.:
Assailedinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorari1underRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourtisthedecision2dated
September 24, 2008 and the resolution3 dated April 30, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No.
82301. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77,
dismissing the complaint for declaration of nullity of loan filed by petitioner Alvin Patrimonio and ordering him to
payrespondentOctavioMarasiganIII(Marasigan)thesumofP200,000.00.
TheFactualBackground
Thefactsofthecase,asshownbytherecords,arebrieflysummarizedbelow.
The petitioner and the respondent Napoleon Gutierrez (Gutierrez) entered into a business venture under the
nameofSlamDunkCorporation(SlumDunk),aproductionoutfitthatproducedminiconcertsandshowsrelated
to basketball. Petitioner was already then a decorated professional basketball player while Gutierrez was a well
knownsportscolumnist.
Inthecourseoftheirbusiness,thepetitionerpresignedseveralcheckstoanswerfortheexpensesofSlamDunk.
Although signed, these checks had no payees name, date or amount. The blank checks were entrusted to
Gutierrez with the specific instruction not to fill them out without previous notification to and approval by the
petitioner.Accordingtopetitioner,thearrangementwasmadesothathecouldverifythevalidityofthepayment
andmaketheproperarrangementstofundtheaccount.
In the middle of 1993, without the petitioners knowledge and consent, Gutierrez went to Marasigan (the
petitioners former teammate), to secure a loan in the amount of P200,000.00 on the excuse that the petitioner
neededthemoneyfortheconstructionofhishouse.Inadditiontothepaymentoftheprincipal,Gutierrezassured
Marasiganthathewouldbepaidaninterestof5%permonthfromMarchtoMay1994.
After much contemplation and taking into account his relationship with the petitioner and Gutierrez, Marasigan
acceded to Gutierrez request and gave him P200,000.00 sometime in February 1994. Gutierrez simultaneously
deliveredtoMarasiganoneoftheblankchecksthepetitionerpresignedwithPilipinasBank,GreenhillsBranch,
Check No. 21001764 with the blank portions filled out with the words "Cash" "Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
Only",andtheamountof"P200,000.00".Theupperrightportionofthecheckcorrespondingtothedatewasalso
filledoutwiththewords"May23,1994"butthepetitionercontendedthatthesamewasnotwrittenbyGutierrez.
OnMay24,1994,Marasigandepositedthecheckbutitwasdishonoredforthereason"ACCOUNTCLOSED."It
waslaterrevealedthatpetitionersaccountwiththebankhadbeenclosedsinceMay28,1993.
MarasigansoughtrecoveryfromGutierrez,tonoavail.Hethereaftersentseveraldemandletterstothepetitioner
asking for the payment of P200,000.00, but his demands likewise went unheeded. Consequently, he filed a
criminalcaseforviolationofB.P.22againstthepetitioner,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.42816.
OnSeptember10,1997,thepetitionerfiledbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)aComplaintforDeclarationof
NullityofLoanandRecoveryofDamagesagainstGutierrezandcorespondentMarasigan.Hecompletelydenied
authorizingtheloanorthechecksnegotiation,andassertedthathewasnotprivytothepartiesloanagreement.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_187769_2014.html

1/9

9/16/2016

G.R.No.187769

Only Marasigan filed his answer to the complaint. In the RTCs order dated December 22, 1997,Gutierrez was
declaredindefault.
TheRulingoftheRTC
TheRTCruledonFebruary3,2003infavorofMarasigan.4Itfoundthatthepetitioner,inissuingthepresigned
blankchecks,hadtheintentionofissuinganegotiableinstrument,albeitwithspecificinstructionstoGutierreznot
to negotiate or issue the check without his approval. While under Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law
Gutierrezhadtheprimafacieauthoritytocompletethechecksbyfillinguptheblankstherein,theRTCruledthat
he deliberately violated petitioners specific instructions and took advantage of the trust reposed in him by the
latter.
Nonetheless, the RTC declared Marasigan as a holder in due course and accordingly dismissed the petitioners
complaint for declaration of nullity of the loan. It ordered the petitioner to pay Marasigan the face value of the
checkwitharighttoclaimreimbursementfromGutierrez.
The petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), insisting that Marasigan is not a holder in due
course.HecontendedthatwhenMarasiganreceivedthecheck,heknewthatthesamewaswithoutadate,and
hence, incomplete. He also alleged that the loan was actually between Marasigan and Gutierrez with his check
beingusedonlyasasecurity.
TheRulingoftheCA
On September 24, 2008, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, although premised on different factual findings. After
careful analysis, the CA agreed with the petitioner that Marasigan is not a holder in due course as he did not
receivethecheckingoodfaith.
TheCAalsoconcludedthatthecheckhadbeenstrictlyfilledoutbyGutierrezinaccordancewiththepetitioners
authority.Itheldthattheloanmaynotbenullifiedsinceitisgroundedonanobligationarisingfromlawandruled
thatthepetitionerisstillliabletopayMarasiganthesumofP200,000.00.
After the CA denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration that followed, the petitioner filed the present
petitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
ThePetition
The petitioner argues that: (1) there was no loan between him and Marasigan since he never authorized the
borrowing of money nor the checks negotiation to the latter (2) under Article 1878 of the Civil Code, a special
powerofattorneyisnecessaryforanindividualtomakealoanorborrowmoneyinbehalfofanother(3)theloan
transactionwasbetweenGutierrezandMarasigan,withhischeckbeingusedonlyasasecurity(4)thecheckhad
not been completely and strictly filled out in accordance with his authority since the condition that the subject
checkcanonlybeusedprovidedthereispriorapprovalfromhim,wasnotcompliedwith(5)evenifthecheckwas
strictlyfilledupasinstructedbythepetitioner,Marasiganisstillnotentitledtoclaimthechecksvalueashewas
not a holder in due course and (6) by reason of the bad faith in the dealings between the respondents, he is
entitledtoclaimfordamages.
TheIssues
Reducedtoitsbasics,thecasepresentstousthefollowingissues:
1. Whether the contract of loan in the amount of P200,000.00 granted by respondent Marasigan to
petitioner,throughrespondentGutierrez,maybenullifiedforbeingvoid
2.WhetherthereisbasistoholdthepetitionerliableforthepaymentoftheP200,000.00loan
3. Whether respondent Gutierrez has completely filled out the subject check strictly under the authority
givenbythepetitionerand
4.WhetherMarasiganisaholderinduecourse.
TheCourtsRuling
Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.
We note at the outset that the issues raised in this petition are essentially factual in nature. The main point of
inquiryofwhetherthecontractofloanmaybenullified,hingesontheveryexistenceofthecontractofloana
questionthat,aspresented,isessentially,oneoffact.Whetherthepetitionerauthorizedtheborrowingwhether
GutierrezcompletelyfilledoutthesubjectcheckstrictlyunderthepetitionersauthorityandwhetherMarasiganis
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_187769_2014.html

2/9

9/16/2016

G.R.No.187769

a holder in due course are also questions of fact, that, as a general rule, are beyond the scope of a Rule 45
petition.
Therulethatquestionsoffactarenotthepropersubjectofanappealbycertiorari,asapetitionforreviewunder
Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law, is not an absolute rule that admits of no exceptions. One notable
exception is when the findings off act of both the trial court and the CA are conflicting, making their review
necessary.5Inthepresentcase,thetribunalsbelowarrivedattwoconflictingfactualfindings,albeitwiththesame
conclusion,i.e.,dismissalofthecomplaintfornullityoftheloan.Accordingly,wewillexaminethepartiesevidence
presented.
I.LiabilityUndertheContractofLoan
Thepetitionerseekstonullifythecontractofloanonthegroundthatheneverauthorizedtheborrowingofmoney.
HepointstoArticle1878,paragraph7oftheCivilCode,whichexplicitlyrequiresawrittenauthoritywhentheloan
is contracted through an agent. The petitioner contends that absent such authority in writing, he should not be
heldliableforthefacevalueofthecheckbecausehewasnotapartyorprivytotheagreement.
ContractsofAgencyMaybeOralUnlessTheLawRequiresaSpecificForm
Article 1868 of the Civil Code defines a contract of agency as a contract whereby a person "binds himself to
rendersomeserviceortodosomethinginrepresentationoronbehalfofanother,withtheconsentorauthorityof
thelatter."Agencymaybeexpress,orimpliedfromtheactsoftheprincipal,fromhissilenceorlackofaction,or
hisfailuretorepudiatetheagency,knowingthatanotherpersonisactingonhisbehalfwithoutauthority.
Asageneralrule,acontractofagencymaybeoral.6However,itmustbewrittenwhenthelawrequiresaspecific
form,forexample,inasaleofapieceoflandoranyinterestthereinthroughanagent.
Article 1878 paragraph 7 of the Civil Code expressly requires a special power of authority before an agent can
loanorborrowmoneyinbehalfoftheprincipal,towit:
Art.1878.Specialpowersofattorneyarenecessaryinthefollowingcases:
xxxx
(7)Toloanorborrowmoney,unlessthelatteractbeurgentandindispensableforthepreservationofthethings
whichareunderadministration.(emphasissupplied)
Article1878doesnotstatethattheauthoritybeinwriting.Aslongasthemandateisexpress,suchauthoritymay
be either oral or written. We unequivocably declared in Lim Pin v. Liao Tian, et al.,7 that the requirement under
Article1878oftheCivilCodereferstothenatureoftheauthorizationandnottoitsform.Bethatasitmay,the
authoritymustbedulyestablishedbycompetentandconvincingevidenceotherthantheselfservingassertionof
thepartyclaimingthatsuchauthoritywasverballygiven,thus:
TherequirementsofaspecialpowerofattorneyinArticle1878oftheCivilCodeandofaspecialauthorityinRule
138 of the Rules of Court refer to the nature of the authorization and not its form. The requirements are met if
thereisaclearmandatefromtheprincipalspecificallyauthorizingtheperformanceoftheact.Asearlyas1906,
thisCourtinStrongv.GutierrezRepide(6Phil.680)statedthatsuchamandatemaybeeitheroralorwritten,the
one vital thing being that it shall be express. And more recently, We stated that, if the special authority is not
written,thenitmustbedulyestablishedbyevidence:
xxxtheRulesrequire,forattorneystocompromisethelitigationoftheirclients,aspecialauthority.Andwhilethe
same does not state that the special authority be in writing the Court has every reason to expect that, if not in
writing, the same be duly established by evidence other than the selfserving assertion of counsel himself that
suchauthoritywasverballygivenhim.(HomeInsuranceCompanyvs.UnitedStateslinesCompany,etal.,21SCRA
863866:Vicentevs.Geraldez,52SCRA210225).(emphasissupplied).
The Contract of Loan Entered Into by Gutierrez in Behalf of the Petitioner Should be Nullified for Being Void
PetitionerisNotBoundbytheContractofLoan.
A review of the records reveals that Gutierrez did not have any authority to borrow money in behalf of the
petitioner. Records do not show that the petitioner executed any special power of attorney (SPA) in favor of
Gutierrez. In fact, the petitioners testimony confirmed that he never authorized Gutierrez (or anyone for that
matter),whetherverballyorinwriting,toborrowmoneyinhisbehalf,norwasheawareofanysuchtransaction:
1 w p h i1

ALVINPATRIMONIO(witness)
ATTY. DE VERA: Did you give Nap Gutierrez any Special Power of Attorney in writing authorizing him to borrow
usingyourmoney?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_187769_2014.html

3/9

9/16/2016

G.R.No.187769

WITNESS:No,sir.(T.S.N.,AlvinPatrimonio,Nov.11,1999,p.105)8
xxxx
Marasigan however submits that the petitioners acts of presigning the blank checks and releasing them to
GutierrezsufficetoestablishthatthepetitionerhadauthorizedGutierreztofillthemoutandcontracttheloanin
hisbehalf.
Marasiganssubmissionfailstopersuadeus.
Intheabsenceofanyauthorization,Gutierrezcouldnotenterintoacontractofloaninbehalfofthepetitioner.As
heldinYasumav.HeirsofDeVilla,9involvingaloancontractedbydeVillasecuredbyrealestatemortgagesinthe
nameofEastCordilleraMiningCorporation,intheabsenceofanSPAconferringauthorityondeVilla,thereisno
basistoholdthecorporationliable,towit:
Thepowertoborrowmoneyisoneofthosecaseswherecorporateofficersasagentsofthecorporationneeda
specialpowerofattorney.Inthecaseatbar,nospecialpowerofattorneyconferringauthorityondeVillawasever
presented.xxxTherewasnoshowingthatrespondentcorporationeverauthorizeddeVillatoobtaintheloanson
itsbehalf.
xxxx
Therefore,onthefirstissue,theloanwaspersonaltodeVilla.Therewasnobasistoholdthecorporationliable
since there was no authority, express, implied or apparent, given to de Villa to borrow money from petitioner.
Neitherwasthereanysubsequentratificationofhisact.
xxxx
TheliabilityarisingfromtheloanwasthesoleindebtednessofdeVilla(orofhisestateafterhisdeath).(citations
omittedemphasissupplied).
ThisprinciplewasalsoreiteratedinthecaseofGozunv.Mercado,10wherethiscourtheld:
PetitionersubmitsthathisfollowingtestimonysufficestoestablishthatrespondenthadauthorizedLiliantoobtain
aloanfromhim.
xxxx
Petitionerstestimonyfailedtocategoricallystate,however,whethertheloanwasmadeonbehalfofrespondentor
ofhiswife.WhilepetitionerclaimsthatLilianwasauthorizedbyrespondent,thestatementofaccountmarkedas
Exhibit"A"statesthattheamountwasreceivedbyLilian"inbehalfofMrs.AnnieMercado.
ItbearsnotingthatLiliansignedinthereceiptinhernamealone,withoutindicatingthereinthatshewasactingfor
andinbehalfofrespondent.Shethusboundherselfinherpersonalcapacityandnotasanagentofrespondent
oranyoneforthatmatter.
Itisageneralruleinthelawofagencythat,inordertobindtheprincipalbyamortgageonrealpropertyexecuted
byanagent,itmustuponitsfacepurporttobemade,signedandsealedinthenameoftheprincipal,otherwise,it
willbindtheagentonly.Itisnotenoughmerelythattheagentwasinfactauthorizedtomakethemortgage,ifhe
hasnotactedinthenameoftheprincipal.xxx(emphasissupplied).
Intheabsenceofanyshowingofanyagencyrelationsorspecialauthoritytoactforandinbehalfofthepetitioner,
theloanagreementGutierrezenteredintowithMarasiganisnullandvoid.Thus,thepetitionerisnotboundbythe
partiesloanagreement.
Furthermore, that the petitioner entrusted the blank presigned checks to Gutierrez is not legally sufficient
because the authority to enter into a loan can never be presumed. The contract of agency and the special
fiduciaryrelationshipinherentinthiscontractmustexistasamatteroffact.Thepersonallegingithastheburden
ofprooftoshow,notonlythefactofagency,butalsoitsnatureandextent.11AsweheldinPeoplev.Yabut:12
Modesto Yambao's receipt of the bad checks from Cecilia Que Yabut or Geminiano Yabut, Jr., in Caloocan City
cannot, contrary to the holding of the respondent Judges, be licitly taken as delivery of the checks to the
complainant Alicia P. Andan at Caloocan City to fix the venue there. He did not take delivery of the checks as
holder,i.e.,as"payee"or"indorsee."AndthereappearstobenocontractofagencybetweenYambaoandAndan
so as to bind the latter for the acts of the former. Alicia P. Andan declared in that sworn testimony before the
investigating fiscal that Yambao is but her "messenger" or "parttime employee." There was no special fiduciary
relationship that permeated their dealings. For a contract of agency to exist, the consent of both parties is
essential,theprincipalconsentsthattheotherparty,theagent,shallactonhisbehalf,andtheagentconsentsso
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_187769_2014.html

4/9

9/16/2016

G.R.No.187769

to act. It must exist as a fact. The law makes no presumption thereof. The person alleging it has the burden of
prooftoshow,notonlythefactofitsexistence,butalsoitsnatureandextent.Thisismoreimperativewhenitis
consideredthatthetransactiondealtwithinvolveschecks,whicharenotlegaltender,andthecreditormayvalidly
refusethesameaspaymentofobligation.(atp.630).(emphasissupplied)
TherecordsshowthatMarasiganmerelyreliedonthewordsofGutierrezwithoutsecuringacopyoftheSPAin
favorofthelatterandwithoutverifyingfromthepetitionerwhetherhehadauthorizedtheborrowingofmoneyor
releaseofthecheck.HewasthusboundbytheriskaccompanyinghistrustonthemereassurancesofGutierrez.
No Contract of Loan Was Perfected Between Marasigan And Petitioner, as The Latters Consent Was Not
Obtained.
Anothersignificantpointthatthelowercourtsfailedtoconsideristhatacontractofloan,likeanyothercontract,is
subjecttotherulesgoverningtherequisitesandvalidityofcontractsingeneral.13Article1318oftheCivilCode14
enumeratestheessentialrequisitesforavalidcontract,namely:
1.consentofthecontractingparties
2.objectcertainwhichisthesubjectmatterofthecontractand
3.causeoftheobligationwhichisestablished.
Inthiscase,thepetitionerdeniedliabilityonthegroundthatthecontractlackedtheessentialelementofconsent.
We agree with the petitioner. As we explained above, Gutierrez did not have the petitioners written/verbal
authority to enter into a contract of loan. While there may be a meeting of the minds between Gutierrez and
Marasigan,suchagreementcannotbindthepetitionerwhoseconsentwasnotobtainedandwhowasnotprivyto
theloanagreement.Hence,onlyGutierrezisboundbythecontractofloan.
True, the petitioner had issued several presigned checks to Gutierrez, one of which fell into the hands of
Marasigan. This act, however, does not constitute sufficient authority to borrow money in his behalf and neither
should it be construed as petitioners grant of consent to the parties loan agreement. Without any evidence to
prove Gutierrez authority, the petitioners signature in the check cannot be taken, even remotely, as sufficient
authorization,muchless,consenttothecontractofloan.Withouttheconsentgivenbyonepartyinapurported
contract,suchcontractcouldnothavebeenperfectedtheresimplywasnocontracttospeakof.15
Withtheloanissueoutoftheway,wenowproceedtodeterminewhetherthepetitionercanbemadeliableunder
thecheckhesigned.
II.LiabilityUndertheInstrument
TheanswerissuppliedbytheapplicablestatutoryprovisionfoundinSection14oftheNegotiableInstrumentsLaw
(NIL)whichstates:
Sec. 14. Blanks when may be filled. Where the instrument is wanting in any material particular, the person in
possessionthereofhasaprimafacieauthoritytocompleteitbyfillinguptheblankstherein.Andasignatureona
blank paper delivered by the person making the signature in order that the paper may be converted into a
negotiableinstrumentoperatesasaprimafacieauthoritytofillitupassuchforanyamount.Inorder,however,
thatanysuchinstrumentwhencompletedmaybeenforcedagainstanypersonwhobecameapartytheretoprior
toitscompletion,itmustbefilledupstrictlyinaccordancewiththeauthoritygivenandwithinareasonabletime.
Butifanysuchinstrument,aftercompletion,isnegotiatedtoaholderinduecourse,itisvalidandeffectualforall
purposes in his hands, and he may enforce it as if it had been filled up strictly in accordance with the authority
givenandwithinareasonabletime.
Thisprovisionappliestoanincompletebutdeliveredinstrument.Underthisrule,ifthemakerordrawerdeliversa
presigned blank paper to another person for the purpose of converting it into a negotiable instrument, that
person is deemed to have prima facie authority to fill it up. It merely requires that the instrument be in the
possessionofapersonotherthanthedrawerormakerandfromsuchpossession,togetherwiththefactthatthe
instrumentiswantinginamaterialparticular,thelawpresumesagencytofilluptheblanks.16
Inorderhoweverthatonewhoisnotaholderinduecoursecanenforcetheinstrumentagainstapartypriortothe
instrumentscompletion,tworequisitesmustexist:(1)thattheblankmustbefilledstrictlyinaccordancewiththe
authoritygivenand(2)itmustbefilledupwithinareasonabletime.Ifitwasproventhattheinstrumenthadnot
beenfilledupstrictlyinaccordancewiththeauthoritygivenandwithinareasonabletime,themakercansetthis
upasapersonaldefenseandavoidliability.However,iftheholderisaholderinduecourse,thereisaconclusive
presumptionthatauthoritytofillituphadbeengivenandthatthesamewasnotinexcessofauthority.17

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_187769_2014.html

5/9

9/16/2016

G.R.No.187769

Inthepresentcase,thepetitionercontendsthatthereisnolegalbasistoholdhimliablebothunderthecontract
and loan and under the check because: first, the subject check was not completely filled out strictly under the
authorityhehasgivenandsecond,Marasiganwasnotaholderinduecourse.
MarasiganisNotaHolderinDueCourse
TheNegotiableInstrumentsLaw(NIL)definesaholderinduecourse,thus:
Sec.52Aholderinduecourseisaholderwhohastakentheinstrumentunderthefollowingconditions:
(a)Thatitiscompleteandregularuponitsface
(b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously
dishonored,ifsuchwasthefact
(c)Thathetookitingoodfaithandforvalue
(d)Thatatthetimeitwasnegotiatedtohimhehadnonoticeofanyinfirmityintheinstrumentordefectin
thetitleofthepersonnegotiatingit.(emphasissupplied)
Section52(c)oftheNILstatesthataholderinduecourseisonewhotakestheinstrument"ingoodfaithandfor
value."ItalsoprovidesinSection52(d)thatinorderthatonemaybeaholderinduecourse,itisnecessarythat
atthetimeitwasnegotiatedtohimhehadnonoticeofanyinfirmityintheinstrumentordefectinthetitleofthe
personnegotiatingit.
Acquisition in good faith means taking without knowledge or notice of equities of any sort which could beset up
against a prior holder of the instrument.18 It means that he does not have any knowledge of fact which would
render it dishonest for him to take a negotiable paper. The absence of the defense, when the instrument was
taken,istheessentialelementofgoodfaith.19
AsheldinDeOcampov.Gatchalian:20
Inordertoshowthatthedefendanthad"knowledgeofsuchfactsthathisactionintakingtheinstrumentamounted
to bad faith," it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the exact fraud that was practiced upon the
plaintiff by the defendant's assignor, it being sufficient to show that the defendant had notice that there was
somethingwrongabouthisassignor'sacquisitionoftitle,althoughhedidnothavenoticeoftheparticularwrong
thatwascommitted.
Itissufficientthatthebuyerofanotehadnoticeorknowledgethatthenotewasinsomewaytaintedwithfraud.It
isnotnecessarythatheshouldknowtheparticularsoreventhenatureofthefraud,sinceallthatisrequiredis
knowledgeofsuchfactsthathisactionintakingthenoteamountedbadfaith.
Thetermbadfaithdoesnotnecessarilyinvolvefurtivemotives,butmeansbadfaithinacommercialsense.The
manner in which the defendants conducted their Liberty Loan department provided an easy way for thieves to
dispose of their plunder. It was a case of "no questions asked." Although gross negligence does not of itself
constitutebadfaith,itisevidencefromwhichbadfaithmaybeinferred.Thecircumstancesthrustthedutyupon
the defendants to make further inquiries and they had no right to shut their eyes deliberately to obvious facts.
(emphasissupplied).
Inthepresentcase,Marasigansknowledgethatthepetitionerisnotapartyoraprivytothecontractofloan,and
correspondingly had no obligation or liability to him, renders him dishonest, hence, in bad faith. The following
exchangeissignificantonthispoint:
WITNESS:AMBETNABUS
Q:Now,Irefertothesecondcallafteryourbirthday.Telluswhatyoutalkedabout?
A: Since I celebrated my birthday in that place where Nap and I live together with the other crew, there were
severalvisitorsthatincludedDannyEspiritu.Soaweekaftermybirthday,BongMarasigancalledmeupagainand
hewasfumingmad.Nagmumuranasiya.HinahanapniyasihinahanapniyasiNap,dahilpinagtataguannasiya
atsinabinaniyanakailanganIsettlenaniyayungutangniNap,dahil
xxxx
WITNESS:Yes.Sinabiniyasaakinnakailanganayusinnabagopamauwisakungsaanangtsekengtumalbog
(Hetoldmethatwehavetofixitupbeforeit)mauwipakungsaan
xxxx
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_187769_2014.html

6/9

9/16/2016

G.R.No.187769

Q:Whatwasyourreply,ifany?
A:Iactuallyaskedhim.Kaninobaangtsekenasinasabimo?
(Whosecheckisitthatyouarereferringtoortalkingabout?)
Q:Whatwashisanswer?
A:ItwasAlvinscheck.
Q:Whatwasyourreply,ifany?
A:ItoldhimdoyouknowthatitisnotreallyAlvinwhoborrowedmoneyfromyouorwhatyouwanttoappear
xxxx
Q:Whatwashisreply?
A:Yes,itwasNap,perotsekeparinniAlvinanghawakkoatsiAlvinangmaiipitdito.(T.S.N.,AmbetNabus,July
27,2000pp.6571emphasissupplied)21
Since he knew that the underlying obligation was not actually for the petitioner, the rule that a possessor of the
instrument is prima facie a holder in due course is inapplicable. As correctly noted by the CA, his inaction and
failuretoverify,despiteknowledgeofthatthepetitionerwasnotapartytotheloan,maybeconstruedasgross
negligenceamountingtobadfaith.
Yet, it does not follow that simply because he is not a holder in due course, Marasigan is already totally barred
from recovery. The NIL does not provide that a holder who is not a holder in due course may not in any case
recover on the instrument.22 The only disadvantage of a holder who is not in due course is that the negotiable
instrument is subject to defenses as if it were nonnegotiable.23 Among such defenses is the filling up blank not
withintheauthority.
Onthispoint,thepetitionerarguesthatthesubjectcheckwasnotfilledupstrictlyonthebasisoftheauthorityhe
gave.Hepointstohisinstructionnottousethecheckwithouthispriorapprovalandarguesthatthecheckwas
filledupinviolationofsaidinstruction.
CheckWasNotCompletedStrictlyUnderTheAuthorityGivenbyThePetitioner
OurownexaminationoftherecordstellsusthatGutierrezhasexceededtheauthoritytofilluptheblanksanduse
thecheck. Torepeat,petitionergaveGutierrezpresignedcheckstobeusedintheirbusinessprovidedthathe
couldonlyusethemuponhisapproval.HisinstructioncouldnotbeanyclearerasGutierrezauthoritywaslimited
to the use of the checks for the operation of their business, and on the condition that the petitioners prior
approvalbefirstsecured.
1 w p h i1

Whileunderthelaw,Gutierrezhadaprimafacieauthoritytocompletethecheck,suchprimafacieauthoritydoes
notextendtoitsuse(i.e.,subsequenttransferornegotiation)oncethecheckiscompleted.Inotherwords,onlythe
authoritytocompletethecheckispresumed.Further,thelawusedtheterm"primafacie"tounderscorethefact
thattheauthoritywhichthelawaccordstoaholderisapresumptionjuristantumonlyhence,subjecttosubjectto
contraryproof.Thus,evidencethattherewasnoauthorityorthattheauthoritygrantedhasbeenexceededmay
bepresentedbythemakerinordertoavoidliabilityundertheinstrument.
Inthepresentcase,noevidenceisonrecordthatGutierrezeversecuredpriorapprovalfromthepetitionertofill
uptheblankortousethecheck.Inhistestimony,petitionerassertedthatheneverauthorizednorapprovedthe
fillingupoftheblankchecks,thus:
ATTY.DEVERA:DidyouauthorizeanyoneincludingNapGutierreztowritethedate,May23,1994?
WITNESS:No,sir.
Q:DidyouauthorizeanyoneincludingNapGutierreztoputthewordcash?Inthecheck?
A:No,sir.
Q:DidyouauthorizeanyoneincludingNapGutierreztowritethefigureP200,000inthischeck?
A:No,sir.
Q:Andlastly,didyouauthorizeanyoneincludingNapGutierreztowritethewordsP200,000onlyxxinthischeck?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_187769_2014.html

7/9

9/16/2016

G.R.No.187769

A:No,sir.(T.S.N.,AlvinPatrimonio,November11,1999).24
Notably,Gutierrezwasonlyauthorizedtousethecheckforbusinessexpensesthus,heexceededtheauthority
whenheusedthechecktopaytheloanhesupposedlycontractedfortheconstructionofpetitioner'shouse.This
is a clear violation of the petitioner's instruction to use the checks for the expenses of Slam Dunk. It cannot
thereforebevalidlyconcludedthatthecheckwascompletedstrictlyinaccordancewiththeauthoritygivenbythe
petitioner.
ConsideringthatMarasiganisnotaholderinduecourse,thepetitionercanvalidlysetupthepersonaldefense
thattheblankswerenotfilledupinaccordancewiththeauthorityhegave.Consequently,Marasiganhasnoright
toenforcepaymentagainstthepetitionerandthelattercannotbeobligedtopaythefacevalueofthecheck.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedGRANTINGthepetitionerAlvinPatrimonio's
petitionforreviewoncertiorari.TheappealedDecisiondatedSeptember24,2008andtheResolutiondatedApril
30,2009oftheCourtofAppealsareconsequentlyANNULLEDANDSETASIDE.Costsagainsttherespondents.
SOORDERED.
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1

UnderRule45oftheRulesofCoui1,rollo,pp.931,

Id. at 3047 penned by Associate Justice Monina ArevaloZenarosa, and concurred in by Associate
JusticeRegaladoE.MaambongandAssociateJusticeSixtoC.Marella,Jr.
3

Id.at4850.

Rollo,pp.6772.

Republicv.Bellate,G.R.No.175685,August7,2013,703SCRA210,218.

Article1869,CivilCodeofthePhilippines.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_187769_2014.html

8/9

9/16/2016

G.R.No.187769
7

200Phil.685(1982).

Rollo,p.82.

G.R.No.150350,August22,2006,499SCRA466,472.

10

G.R.No.167812,December19,2006,511SCRA305,313314.

11

Peoplev.Yabut,G.R.No.L42847andL42902,April29,1977,167Phil.336,343.

12

Id.

13

PentacapitalInvestmentCorporationv.Mahinay,G.R.No.171736,July5,2010,623SCRA284,302.

14

Art.1318.Thereisnocontractunlessthefollowingrequisitesconcur:
(1)Consentofthecontractingparties
(2)Objectcertainwhichisthesubjectmatterofthecontract
(3)Causeoftheobligationwhichisestablished.(1261).

15

DehezaInamargav.Alano,G.R.No.171321,December18,2008,574SCRA651,660.

16

Dyv.People,G.R.No.158312,November14,2008,571SCRA59,7172.

17

T.B. Aquino, Notes and Cases on Banks, Negotiable Instruments and Other Commercial Documents, p.
234(2006ed.).
18

A.F. Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, p. 281
(1992ed.).
19

Id.

20

G.R.No.L15126,November30,1961,3SCRA596,598.

21

Rollo,pp.141142.

22

Dinov.Loot,G.R.No.170912,April19,2010,618SCRA393,404.

23

Id.

24

Rollo,p:117.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_187769_2014.html

9/9