Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THE COURT OF
APPEALS. G.R. No. 126568. April 30, 2003.
FACTS:
The notes were payable 30 days after date and provided for the
solidary liability in their non-payment at maturity. Petitioners deny
having received the value of the promissory notes.
The RTC sided with petitioner but the CA reversed the decision.
RULING:
Petitioner claims that they signed the notes in blank but did not
receive the value of the notes. They also admit the genuineness and
due execution of the notes. The promissory notes were negotiable
as they met the requirements of Sec. 1 of the NIL. The notes are
prima facie deemed to have issued for consideration.
Finally on appeal to the SC, Papa cited that according to Art 1249 of
the Civil Code, payment of checks only produce effect once they
have been encashed and he insists that he never encashed the
check. He further alleged that if check was encashed, it should have
been stamped as such or at least a microfilm copy. It must be noted
that the check was in possession of Papa for ten (10) years from the
time payment was made to him.
After more than ten (10) years from the payment in part by cash
and in part by check, the presumption is that the check had been
encashed.
Subsequently, Thomson died but Catalan was not paid yet. The
account was transferred to HSBC International Trustee Limited
(TRUSTEE). Catalan then requested TRUSTEE to pay her but still
refused and even asked her to submit back to them the original
checks for verification.
Catalan and her lawyer went to Hong Kong on their own expense to
personally submit the checks. They still were not honored, leading
Catalan to file a suit against HSBC to collect the money.
RULING:
The SC held that the HSBC was being sued becasue of their evident
failure to heed the instructions of Thomson. HSBANK cited Sec. 189
of the NIL but the SC said that what is being sued is how they acted
in relation to Catalan's claim for payment despite repeated requests
and not of the check's value.