ROBBY D.

SHORT V:
METROBANK vs. CA RATIO:
G.R. No. 88866 18 February 1991  The Court held that the treasury warrants are non-negotiable
instruments evident by the word “non-negotiable” stamped on
its face, and it also indicates that they are payable from a
Petition for review on certiorari particular fund, Fund 501.
 Sec. 3 of the NIL provides that an “order or promise to pay out
J. Cruz of a particular fund is not unconditional.” The indication that the
source of the payment (Fund 501) makes the order or promise
to pay “not unconditional” and the warrants themselves non-
FACTS: negotiable.
 Petitioner cannot contend that by indorsing the warrants in
 Eduardo Gomez opened an account with Golden Savings and general, Golden assumed that they were “genuine and in all
Loan Association (Golden) and deposited 38 treasury warrants respects what they purport to be,” in accordance with Sec. 66
which total P1,755,228.37 [all were drawn by Philippine Fish of NIL. The simple reason is that this law is not applicable to
Marketing Authority; 6 were directly payable to Gomez, others non-negotiable treasury warrants.
were indorsed by their respective payees].  Castillo did not indorse them for the purpose of guaranteeing
 On various dates (between 25 June to 16 July 1979) all the their genuineness but to deposit them with petitioner for
treasury warrants were subsequently indorsed by Gloria clearing.
Castillo, a cashier at Golden, and deposited to the company’s
Metrobank account.
LONG V:
 They were sent for clearing to the petitioner’s main office,
which forwarded them to the Bureau of Treasury for special Facts: The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (MetroBank) is a
clearing. commercial bank with branches throughout the Philippines and even
 After repeated inquiries by their “valued client,” represented by abroad. Golden Savings and Loan Association was, at the time these
Castillo, petitioner allowed the series of withdrawals (9, 13 & events happened, operating in Calapan, Mindoro, with Lucia Castillo,
16 July 1979), which totaled P968,000.00.
Magno Castillo and Gloria Castillo as its principal officers. In January
 In turn, Gomez was allowed to withdraw from his account with
1979, a certain Eduardo Gomez opened an account with Golden
Golden (a total of P1,167,500.00)
Savings and deposited over a period of 2 months 38 treasury
 21 July 1979 – petitioner informed Golden that 32 of the
treasury warrants were dishonored by the Bureau of Treasury, warrants with a total value of P1,755,228.37. They were all drawn by
and demanded the refund which was rejected. the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority and purportedly signed by its
 RTC: rendered judgment in favor of Golden. On motion for General Manager and counter-signed by its Auditor. 6 of these were
reconsideration, complaint was dismissed. directly payable to Gomez while the others appeared to have been
 CA: trial court decision was affirmed. indorsed by their respective payees, followed by Gomez as second
indorser. On various dates between June 25 and July 16, 1979, all
these warrants were subsequently indorsed by Gloria Castillo as
ISSUE: Whether treasury warrants are negotiable instruments? Cashier of Golden Savings and deposited to its Savings Account 2498
HELD: No. CA decision AFFIRMED. in the Metrobank branch in Calapan, Mindoro. They were then sent for
 ROBBY D.
clearing by the branch office to the principal office of Metrobank, P100,000.00. On appeal to the appellate court, the decision was
which forwarded them to the Bureau of Treasury for special clearing. affirmed, prompting Metrobank to file the petition for review.
More than 2 weeks after the deposits, Gloria Castillo went to the
Calapan branch several times to ask whether the warrants had been
cleared. She was told to wait. Accordingly, Gomez was meanwhile not Issue: Whether the treasury warrants in question are negotiable
allowed to withdraw from his account. Later, however, "exasperated" instruments.
over Gloria's repeated inquiries and also as an accommodation for a
"valued client," MetroBank says it finally decided to allow Golden
Savings to withdraw from the proceeds of the warrants. The first Held: Clearly stamped on the treasury warrants' face is the word
withdrawal was made on 9 July 1979, in the amount of P508,000.00, "non-negotiable." Moreover, and this is of equal significance, it is
the second on 13 July 1979, in the amount of P310,000.00, and the indicated that they are payable from a particular fund, to wit, Fund
third on 16 July 1979, in the amount of P150,000.00. The total 501. Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, provides that "An
withdrawal was P968,000.00. In turn, Golden Savings subsequently instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following
allowed Gomez to make withdrawals from his own account, eventually requirements: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or
collecting the total amount of P1,167,500.00 from the proceeds of the drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a
apparently cleared warrants. The last withdrawal was made on 16 July sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or
1979. On 21 July 1979, Metrobank informed Golden Savings that 32 determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer;
of the warrants had been dishonored by the Bureau of Treasury on 19 and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be
July 1979, and demanded the refund by Golden Savings of the named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty."
amount it had previously withdrawn, to make up the deficit in its Section 3 (When promise is unconditional) thereof provides that "An
account. The demand was rejected. Metrobank then sued Golden unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional within the
Savings in the Regional Trial Court of Mindoro. After trial, judgment meaning of this Act though coupled with — (a) An indication of a
was rendered in favor of Golden Savings, which, however, filed a particular fund out of which reimbursement is to be made or a
motion for reconsideration even as Metrobank filed its notice of particular account to be debited with the amount; or (b) A statement of
appeal. On 4 November 1986, the lower court modified its decision, the transaction which gives rise to the instrument. But an order or
by dismissing the complaint with costs against Metrobank; by promise to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional." The
issolving and lifting the writ of attachment of the properties of Golden indication of Fund 501 as the source of the payment to be made on
Savings and Spouses Magno Castillo and Lucia Castillo; directing the treasury warrants makes the order or promise to pay "not
Metrobank to reverse its action of debiting Savings Account 2498 of unconditional" and the warrants themselves non-negotiable. There
the sum of P1,754,089.00 and to reinstate and credit to such account should be no question that the exception on Section 3 of the
such amount existing before the debit was made including the amount Negotiable Instruments Law is applicable in the present case.
of P812,033.37 in favor of Golden Savings and thereafter, to allow Metrobank cannot contend that by indorsing the warrants in general,
Golden Savings to withdraw the amount outstanding thereon before Golden Savings assumed that they were "genuine and in all respects
the debit; by ordering Metrobank to pay Golden Savings attorney's what they purport to be," in accordance with Section 66 of the
fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of P200,000.00; and by Negotiable Instruments Law. The simple reason is that this law is not
ordering Metrobank to pay the Spouses Magno Castillo and Lucia applicable to the non-negotiable treasury warrants. The indorsement
Castillo attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of was made by Gloria Castillo not for the purpose of guaranteeing the
genuineness of the warrants but merely to deposit them with
 ROBBY D.
Metrobank for clearing. It was in fact Metrobank that made the  December 8, 1982: Caltex was requested by Security Bank to
guarantee when it stamped on the back of the warrants: "All prior furnish:
indorsement and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed, Metropolitan
Bank & Trust Co., Calapan Branch."  a copy of the document evidencing the guarantee
agreement with Mr. Angel dela Cruz

 the details of Mr. Angel's obligation against which

Caltex proposed to apply the time deposits
SHORT V:  Security Bank rejected Caltex demand for payment bec. it
Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Caltex (Phils.) Inc. V. CA And failed to furnish a copy of its agreement w/ Angel
Security Bank And Trust Co. (1992)
 April 1983, the loan of Angel dela Cruz with Security Bank
Lessons Applicable: Requisites of negotiability to antedated and matured
postdated instruments (Negotiable Instrument Law)
 August 5, 1983: CTD were set-off w/ the matured loan

FACTS:  Caltex filed a complaint praying the bank to pay 1,120,000

 Security Bank and Trust Company (Security Bank), a plus 16% interest
commercial banking institution, through its Sucat Branch issued
280 certificates of time deposit (CTDs) in favor of Angel dela Cruz  CA affirmed RTC to dismiss complaint
who deposited with Security Bank the total amount of P1,120,000
ISSUE:
 Angel delivered the CTDs to Caltex for his purchase of fuel
products
1. W/N the CTDs are negotiable
 March 18, 1982: Angel informed Mr. Tiangco, the Sucat
Branch Manager that he lost all CTDs, submitted the required 2. W/N Caltex as holder in due course can rightfully recover on
Affidavit of Loss and received the replacement the CTDs

 March 25, 1982: Angel dela Cruz negotiated and obtained a

loan from Security Bank in the amount of P875,000 and executed
a notarized Deed of Assignment of Time Deposit HELD: Petition is Denied and appealed decision is affirmed.

 November, 1982: Mr. Aranas, Credit Manager of Caltex went 1. YES.

to the Sucat branch to verify the CTDs declared lost by Angel Section 1 Act No. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable
Instruments Law, enumerates the requisites for an instrument to
 November 26, 1982: Security Bank received a letter from become negotiable, viz:
Caltex formally informing it of its possession of the CTDs in
question and of its decision to pre-terminate the same.
(a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
 ROBBY D.
(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum governed by the Civil Code provisions on pledge of incorporeal
certain in money; rights:
(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future
time;
(d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and -check Art. 2095. Incorporeal rights, evidenced by negotiable instruments, . . .
(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be may also be pledged. The instrument proving the right pledged shall
named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty. be delivered to the creditor, and if negotiable, must be indorsed.
 The documents provide that the amounts deposited shall be Art. 2096. A pledge shall not take effect against third persons if a
repayable to the depositor description of the thing pledged and the date of the pledge do not
appear in a public instrument.
 depositor = bearer Art. 1625. An assignment of credit, right or action shall produce no
effect as against third persons, unless it appears in a public
 If it was really the intention of respondent bank instrument, or the instrument is recorded in the Registry of Property in
to pay the amount to Angel de la Cruz only, it could have with case the assignment involves real property.
facility so expressed that fact in clear and categorical terms in the
documents, instead of having the word "BEARER" stamped on the LONG V:
space provided for the name of the depositor in each CTD
FACTS:
 negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is determined
Security bank issued Certificates of Time Deposits to Angel dela Cruz.
from the writing, that is, from the face of the instrument itself
The same were given by Dela Cruz to petitioner in connection to his
2. NO. purchase of fuel products of the latter. On a later date, Dela Cruz
 although the CTDs are bearer instruments, a valid negotiation approached the bank manager, communicated the loss of the
thereof for the true purpose and agreement between it and De la certificates and requested for a reissuance. Upon compliance
Cruz, as ultimately ascertained, requires both delivery and with some formal requirements, he was issued replacements.
indorsement Thereafter, he secured a loan from the bank where he assigned the
certificates as security. Here comes the petitioner, averred that
 CTDs were in reality delivered to it as a security for De the certificates were not actually lost but were given as security
la Cruz' purchases of its fuel products for payment for fuel purchases. The bank demanded some proof of
the agreement but the petitioner failed to comply. The loan
 There was no negotiation in the sense of a transfer of matured and the time deposits were terminated and then applied to
the legal title to the CTDs in favor of petitioner in which situation,
the payment of the loan. Petitioner demands the payment of the
for obvious reasons, mere delivery of the bearer CTDs would have
certificates but to no avail.
sufficed.

 Where the holder has a lien on the instrument arising from

contract, he is deemed a holder for value to the extent of his lien. SECURITY BANK

 As such holder of collateral security, he would be a AND TRUST COMPANY

pledgee but the requirements therefor and the effects thereof, not
6778 Ayala Ave., Makati No. 90101
being provided for by the Negotiable Instruments Law, shall be
 ROBBY D.
Metro Manila, Philippines documents do not say that the depositor is Angel de la Cruz and that
the amounts deposited are
SUCAT OFFICEP 4,000.00
repayable specifically to him. Rather, the amounts are to be
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
repayable to the bearer of the documents or, for that matter,
Rate 16% whosoever may be the bearer at the time of presentment.
If it was really the intention of respondent bank to pay the
amount to Angel de la Cruz only, it could have with facility so
Date of Maturity FEB. 23, 1984 FEB 22, 1982, 19____ expressed that fact in clear and categorical terms in the documents,
instead of having the word "BEARER" stamped on the space provided
for the name of the depositor in each CTD. On the wordings of the
This is to Certify that B E A R E R has deposited in this Bank the sum documents, therefore, the amounts deposited are repayable to
of whoever may be the bearer thereof. Thus, petitioner's aforesaid
witness merely declared that Angel de la Cruz is the
PESOS: FOUR THOUSAND ONLY, SECURITY BANK SUCAT
OFFICE P4,000 & depositor "insofar as the bank is concerned," but obviously other
parties not privy to the transaction between them would not be
00 CTS Pesos, Philippine Currency, repayable to said depositor 731 in a position to know that the depositor is not the bearer stated in
days. the CTDs. Hence, the situation would require any party dealing with
after date, upon presentation and surrender of this certificate, with the CTDs to go behind the plain import of what is written thereon
interest to unravel the agreement of the parties thereto through facts
aliunde. This need for resort to extrinsic evidence is what is
at the rate of 16% per cent per annum. sought to be avoided by the Negotiable Instruments Law and
calls for the application of the elementary rule that the
interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not
(Sgd. Illegible) (Sgd. Illegible) favor the party who caused the obscurity.
The next query is whether petitioner can rightfully recover on
the CTDs. This time, the answer is in the negative. The records
—————————— ——————————— reveal that Angel de la Cruz, whom petitioner chose not to implead in
this suit for reasons of its own, delivered the CTDs amounting to
P1,120,000.00 to petitioner without informing respondent bank
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES thereof at any time. Unfortunately for petitioner, although the
CTDs are bearer instruments, a valid negotiation thereof for the
HELD:
true purpose and agreement between it and De la Cruz, as ultimately
CTDs are negotiable instruments. The documents provide that the ascertained, requires both delivery and indorsement. For, although
amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor. And who, petitioner seeks to deflect this fact, the CTDs were in reality
according to the document, is the depositor? It is the "bearer." The delivered to it as a security for De la Cruz' purchases of its fuel
products. Any doubt as to whether the CTDs were delivered as
 ROBBY D.
payment for the fuel products or as a security has been dissipated
and resolved in favor of the latter by petitioner's own authorized Issue:
and responsible representative himself. Whether or not the postal money order in question is a
negotiable instrument
In a letter dated November 26, 1982 addressed to respondent
Security Bank, J.Q. Aranas, Jr., Caltex Credit Manager, wrote: Held:
". . . These certificates of deposit were negotiated to us by Mr. No. It is not disputed that the Philippine postal statutes were
Angel dela Cruz to guarantee his purchases of fuel products." patterned after similar statutes in force in United States. The Weight of
This admission is conclusive upon petitioner, its protestations authority in the United States is that postal money orders are not
notwithstanding. Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or negotiable instruments, the reason being that in establishing and
representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, operating a postal money order system, the government is not
and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying engaged in commercial transactions but merely exercises a
governmental power for the public benefit. Moreover, some of the
thereon
restrictions imposed upon money orders by postal laws and
PREVIOUS CASES: regulations are inconsistent with the character of negotiable
instruments. For instance, such laws and regulations usually provide
PECO vs. Soriano for not more than one endorsement; payment of money orders may
be withheld under a variety of circumstances.
Philippine Education Co. vs. Soriano

L-22405 June 30, 1971 Tibajia Jr. v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 100290. June 4, 1993]
Dizon, J.:
FACTS
Facts: Tibajia spouses delivered to Sheriff the total money judgment in
Enrique Montinola sought to purchase from Manila Post Office cashier’s check and cash.Private respondent, Eden Tan, refused to
ten money orders of 200php each payable to E. P. Montinola. accept the payment made by the Tibajia spouses and instead insisted
Montinola offered to pay with the money orders with a private check. that the garnished funds deposited with the cashier of the Regional
Private check were not generally accepted in payment of money
Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila be withdrawn to satisfy the
orders, the teller advised him to see the Chief of the Money Order
Division, but instead of doing so, Montinola managed to leave the judgment obligation. Tibajias filed a motion to lift the writ of execution
building without the knowledge of the teller. Upon the disappearance on the ground that the judgment debt had already been paid. The
of the unpaid money order, a message was sent to instruct all banks motion was denied.
that it must not pay for the money order stolen upon presentment. The
ISSUE
Bank of America received a copy of said notice. However, The Bank of
America received the money order and deposited it to the appellant’s Whether or not payment by means of cashier’s check is considered
account upon clearance. Mauricio Soriano, Chief of the Money Order payment in legal tender.
Division notified the Bank of America that the money order deposited
had been found to have been irregularly issued and that, the amount it RULING
represented had been deducted from the bank’s clearing account. The
Bank of America debited appellant’s account with the same account NO. A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check, is not
and give notice by mean of debit memo. legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid
 ROBBY D.
tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault
creditor. A check is not legal tender and that a creditor may validly of the creditor they have been impaired.
refuse payment by check, whether it be a manager’s, cashier’s or In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall
personal check. The Supreme Court stressed that, “We are not, by be held in abeyance.;
this decision, sanctioning the use of a check for the payment of
b. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 529, as amended, which
obligations over the objection of the creditor.”
provides:
VERSION 2: Sec. 1. Every provision contained in, or made with respect to, any
FACTS obligation which purports to give the obligee the right to require
payment in gold or in any particular kind of coin or currency other than
Philippine currency or in an amount of money of the Philippines
 A suit for collection of a sum of money filed by Eden Tan
measured thereby, shall be as it is hereby declared against public
against the Tibajia spouses
policy null and void, and of no effect, and no such provision shall be
 A writ of attachment was issued by the trial court
contained in, or made with respect to, any obligation thereafter
 The Deputy Sheriff filed a return stating that a deposit made by
incurred. Every obligation heretofore and hereafter incurred, whether
the Tibajia spouses had been garnished by him.
or not any such provision as to payment is contained therein or made
 Tibajia spouses delivered to Deputy Sheriff Eduardo Bolima
with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment in any coin or
the total money judgment in check
currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and
 Private respondent refused to accept the payment made by
private debts
the Tibajia spouses and instead insisted that the garnished funds
deposited be withdrawn to satisfy the judgment obligation. Section 63 of Republic Act No. 265, as amended (Central Bank Act)
 Petitioners filed a motion to lift the writ of execution on the which provides:
ground that the judgment debt had already been paid
Sec. 63. Legal character — Checks representing deposit money do
 Motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that
not have legal tender power and their acceptance in the payment of
payment in cashier's check is not payment in legal tender and that
debts, both public and private, is at the option of the
payment was made by a third party other than the defendant
creditor: Provided, however, that a check which has been cleared and
ISSUE
credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery
 WHETHER OR NOT THE BPI CASHIER'S CHECK
to the creditor of cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to
TENDERED BY PETITIONERS FOR PAYMENT OF THE
his account.
JUDGMENT DEBT, IS "LEGAL TENDER"
RULING In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of
 The provisions of law applicable to the case at bar are the Appeals 4 and Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs.
following: Intermediate Appellate Court, 5 this Court held that —
a. Article 1249 of the Civil Code which provides: A check, whether a manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal
Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid
currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or
then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. creditor.
The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange
or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of
Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Philippine Airlines V. CA (1990)
 ROBBY D.
G.R. No. L-49188 January 30, 1990  Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money
Lessons Applicable: Promissory notes and checks (Negotiable and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by
Instruments Law) itself, operate as payment

 The payment made by the PAL to the absconding

FACTS: sheriff was not in cash or legal tender but in checks
 November 8, 1967: Amelia Tan, under the name and style of
Able Printing Press commenced a complaint for damages before
the CFI Article 1249 of the Civil Code provides:
The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency
 CFI: favored Amelia Tan against Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL) stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the
currency which is legal tender in the Philippines.
 CA affirmed with mod The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange
or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment
 May 18, 1978: PAL received a copy of the first alias writ of only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the
execution issued on the same day directing Special Sheriff Jaime creditor they have been impaired.
K. del Rosario to levy on execution in the sum of P25,000.00 with  As between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer
legal interest thereon from July 20,1967 when respondent Amelia the consequence of a breach of trust, the one who made it
Tan made an extra-judicial demand through a letter possible by his act of confidence must bear the loss.

 May 23, 1978: PAL filed an urgent motion to quash the alias  PAL without prudence, departed from what is generally
writ of execution stating that no return of the writ had as yet been observed and done, and placed as payee in the checks the
made and that the judgment debt had already been fully satisfied name of the errant Sheriff and not the name of the rightful payee
as evidenced by the cash vouchers signed and received by
Deputy Sheriff Reyes who absconded
VERSION 2:
 May 26,1978: served a notice of garnishment on the FACTS
depository bank of PAL
Amelia Tan was found to have been wronged by Philippine Air Lines
ISSUE: W/N payment made to the absconding sheriff by check in his (PAL). She filed her complaint in 1967. After ten (10) years of
name operate to satisfy the judgment debt protracted litigation in the Court of First Instance and the Court of
Appeals, Ms. Tan won her case. Almost twenty-two (22) years later,
Ms. Tan has not seen a centavo of what the courts have solemnly
HELD: NO. CA affirmed. declared as rightfully hers. Through absolutely no fault of her own, Ms.
 payment must be made to the obligee himself or to an agent Tan has been deprived of what, technically, she should have been
having authority, express or implied, to receive the particular paid from the start, before 1967, without need of her going to court to
payment enforce her rights. And all because PAL did not issue the checks
intended for her, in her name. Petitioner PAL filed a petition for review
 The receipt of money due on ajudgment by an officer on certiorari the decision of Court of Appeals dismissing the petition
authorized by law to accept it will, therefore, satisfy the debt for certiorari against the order of the Court of First Instance (CFI)
which issued an alias writ of execution against them. Petitioner
 ROBBY D.
alleged that the payment in check had already been effected to the
absconding sheriff, satisfying the judgment.
ISSUE
Whether or not payment by check to the sheriff extinguished the
judgment debt
RULING
NO. The payment made by the petitioner to the absconding sheriff
was not in cash or legal tender but in checks. The checks were not
payable to Amelia Tan or Able Printing Press but to the absconding
sheriff.In the absence of an agreement, either express or implied,
payment means the discharge of a debt or obligation in money and
unless the parties so agree, a debtor has no rights, except at his own
peril, to substitute something in lieu of cash as medium of payment of
his debt. Strictly speaking, the acceptance by the sheriff of the
petitioner’s checks, in the case at bar, does not, per se, operate as a
discharge of the judgment debt. The check as a negotiable instrument
is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an
instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. A check, whether a
manager’s check or ordinary cheek, is not legal tender, and an offer of
a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may
be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. Mere delivery of checks
does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is
not extinguished and remains suspended until the payment by
commercial document is actually realized (Art. 1249, Civil Code, par.
3).