Professional Documents
Culture Documents
167567 |
22 September 2010
FACTS:
• Puzon was a dealer of San Miguel beer products, buying the same
on credit.
• The checks are then returned after full payment of the value of the
transaction.
• San Miguel then sent a demand letter asking for the checks back.
After being ignored, San Miguel filed a criminal complaint for theft against
Puzon.
Ruling:
No, the delivery of the check did not make SMC the owner thereof.
The check was not given as payment, there being no intent to give effect
to the instrument.
Liabilities of Acceptor
DOCTRINE:
Banks have the duty to scrutinize the checks deposited with it, for a
determination of their genuineness and regularity. The law holds banks to a high
standard because banks hold themselves out to the public as experts in the
field.
The nature of crossed checks should place a bank on notice that it should
exercise more caution or expend more than a cursory inquiry, to ascertain
whether the payee on the check has authorized the holder to deposit the same
in a different account
FACTS:
• After Interco found out about Uy’s scheme, it issued 3 more checks
covering the payment but only some of the interest amount, it not being
the cause of the delay.
• The RTC ruled that the crossed checks belonged solely to the payee
named therein, SSPI. Since SSPI did not authorize anyone to receive
payment in its behalf, Uy clearly had no title to the checks and Equitable
had no right to accept the said checks from Uy. o Equitable was
negligent in permitting Uy to deposit the checks in his account without
verifying Uy’s right to endorse the crossed checks.
HELD:
Yes, banks have the duty to scrutinize the checks deposited with it, for a
determination of their genuineness and regularity. The law holds banks to
a high standard because banks hold themselves out to the public as
experts in the field.
• • The checks that Interco issued in favor of SSP were all crossed,
made payable to SSP’s order, and contained the notation “account
payee only.” This creates a reasonable expectation that the payee alone
would receive the proceeds of the checks and that diversion of the
checks would be averted. This expectation arises from the accepted
banking practice that crossed checks are intended for deposit in the
named payee’s account only and no other.
Facts:
The petitioner and the respondent Napoleon
Gutierrez (Gutierrez) entered into a business venture under the name of
Slam Dunk Corporation (Slum Dunk)
In the course of their business, the petitioner pre-signed several
checks to answer for the expenses of Slam Dunk. Although signed, these
checks had no payee's 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.
In the middle of 1993, without the petitioner's knowledge and
consent, Gutierrez went to Marasigan (the petitioner's former teammate),
to secure a loan in the amount of P200,000.00 on the excuse that the
petitioner needed the money for the construction of his house.
Marasigan acceded to Gutierrez' request and gave him P200,000.00
sometime in February 1994. Gutierrez simultaneously delivered to
Marasigan one of the blank checks the petitioner pre-signed with Pilipinas
Bank, Greenhills Branch, Check No. 21001764 with the blank portions filled
out with the words "Cash" "Two Hundred Thousand Pesos Only", and the
amount of "P200,000.00".
On May 24, 1994, Marasigan deposited the check but it was
dishonored for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED." It was later revealed that
petitioner's account with the bank had been closed since May 28, 1993.
ISSUES:
1. Whether respondent Gutierrez has completely filled out
the subject check strictly under the authority given by the
petitioner
|||
Ruling
Facts:
Facts:
Petitioners Cesar V. Areza and Lolita B. Areza maintained two
bank deposits with respondent Express Savings Bank's Biñan branch.
They were engaged in the business of "buy and sell" of brand new
and second-hand motor vehicles. On 2 May 2000, they received an
order from a certain Gerry Mambuay (Mambuay) for the purchase of a
second-hand Mitsubishi Pajero and a brand-new Honda CRV.
The buyer, Mambuay, paid petitioners with nine (9) Philippine
Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) checks payable to different payees and
drawn against the Philippine Veterans Bank (drawee), each valued at
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) for a total of One Million
Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,800,000.00).
Such checks were then subsequently deposited to Petitioner’s
bank accounts and cleared by the Drawee. However, it was later
found out that such checks where already materially altered prior to it
clearance, and dishonored by Drawee later, which resulted into
Express savings bank debiting the amount of the dishonored check
from petitioner’s accounts.
Issue:
When the drawee accepted/cleared the check, is it liable according to
the altered tenor of acceptance based on Sec. 63 of NIL(Negotiable
Instruments Law) or according to its original tenor based on Sec. 124 of the NIL?
Ruling:
The drawee, however, still has recourse to recover its loss. It may
pass the liability back to the collecting bank which is what the drawee
bank exactly did in this case. It debited the account of Equitable-PCI
Bank for the altered amount of the checks.
The Court here, upheld the view that the acceptor/drawee is liable
only to the extent of the bill prior to alteration.
(Chua v. People, G.R. No. 196853 , [July 13, 2015])
Facts
Chua and private complainant Philip See (See) were long-time friends
and neighbors. On different dates from 1992 until 1993, Chua issued
several postdated PSBank checks of varying amounts to See pursuant to
their rediscounting arrangement at a 3% rate
However, See claimed that when he deposited the checks, they were
dishonored either due to insufficient funds or closed account. Despite
demands, Chua failed to make good the checks. Hence, See filed on
December 23, 1993 a Complaint for violations of BP 22 before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. He attached thereto a demand
letter dated December 10, 1993|||
Issue:
Ruling:
No, such notice must be issued only after said checks have been
dishonored and within 5 banking days from such notice failed to satisfy
said amount can the prima facie presumption of issuance of an unfunded
check arise. As such gives the accused an opportunity to avert
prosecution and serves to mitigate the harshness of the law in its
application
Checks can only be dishonored after they have been issued and
presented for payment. Before that, dishonor cannot take place. Thus, a
demand letter that precedes the issuance of checks cannot constitute as
sufficient notice of dishonor within the contemplation of BP 22.
Land Bank vs Kho G.R. No. 205839, (July 27, 2016)
Facts:
He also gave Rudy Medel a photocopy of the check that the bank
had given him;
After his visit to the Bank, the deal with Medel and Red Orange did
not push through;
Issue:
W/N Kho is precluded from setting up the defense of Forgery?
Ruling:
Facts
ISSUE/S: WON drawee bank can still deny payment of a manager’s check
due to the Personal Defense of Lim that a defective Montero was sold to
Lim.
Ruling:
YES. As a general rule, the drawee bank is not liable until it accepts.
Acceptance, therefore, creates a privity of contract between the holder
and the drawee so much so that the latter, once it accepts, becomes
the party primarily liable on the instrument.
Issue: Whether or not the said checks may be used as basis for Petitioner’s
Monetary Claim against respondent?
Ruling:
Facts:
As security for the payment of the loan, [Evangelista] gave two (2)
open-dated checks, both pay to the order of Screenex, Inc. From the
time the checks were issued by [Evangelista], they were held in safe
keeping together with the other documents and papers of the
company by Philip Gotuaco, Sr., father-in-law of respondent Alexander
Yu, until the former's death on 19 November 2004.
Before the checks were deposited, there was a personal demand from
the family for [Evangelista] to settle the loan and likewise a demand
letter sent by the family lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner Evangelista is still liable for the total amount of
the check?
Ruling: