Scribd
Upload
51 views2 pages

Samson Ching, Petitioner, vs. Clarita Nicdao

Samson Ching filed criminal charges against Clarita Nicdao for 11 counts of violating BP 22 related to checks she wrote. Nicdao denied borrowing the full amount claimed and said the checks were given as security but the loans were now paid. The trial court ruled in Ching's favor. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Nicdao had borrowed and repaid a smaller amount to a different lender, and the large check was incomplete when stolen and filled in without her authorization, so she could not be liable under BP 22.

Uploaded by

Jose Bautista
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views2 pages

Samson Ching, Petitioner, vs. Clarita Nicdao

Samson Ching filed criminal charges against Clarita Nicdao for 11 counts of violating BP 22 related to checks she wrote. Nicdao denied borrowing the full amount claimed and said the checks were given as security but the loans were now paid. The trial court ruled in Ching's favor. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Nicdao had borrowed and repaid a smaller amount to a different lender, and the large check was incomplete when stolen and filled in without her authorization, so she could not be liable under BP 22.

Uploaded by

Jose Bautista
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SAMSON CHING, Petitioner, vs.

CLARITA NICDAO

FACTS:

Samson Ching instituted criminal complaints for eleven (11) counts of violation of BP 22
against Clarita Nicdao. He alleges that the said accused willfully and unlawfully make or
draw and issue Hermosa Savings & Loan Bank, Inc. Check No. [002524]
[₱20,000,000.00] in payment of her obligation. Ching also alleges that the said accused
knowing fully well that at the time she issued the said check she did not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the said check upon
presentment. Such checks were issued to him by respondent Nicdao as security for the
loans that she obtained from him.

Respondent Nicdao denied the allegation that she had borrowed money from both
petitioner Ching and Nuguid in the total amount of ₱22,950,000.00. She admitted that she
obtained a loan from Nuguid but only for ₱2,100,000.00 and the same was already fully
paid. She also presented and identified several cigarette wrappers and at the back of
which appeared computation of the payments for the daily interests.

Respondent admitted that the signature in the 20m check was hers but denied that she
issued the same to petitioner Ching. She alleges that when she already had the money
to pay them, petitioner Ching and Nuguid refused to return the checks claiming that she
still owed them money. It was at this point that she got angry and dared them to go to
court.

On cross-examination Nicdao stressed that the ₱20,000,000.00 check was the one that
was reported to her as lost or missing by her saleslady sometime in 1995.

The MCTC ruled in favor of Ching.

ISSUE:

1.) Whether or not Nicdao is guilty of violating BP 22

HELD:

No. CA reversed the decision of the trial court. CA found that respondent Nicdao borrowed
money from Nuguid in the total amount of ₱2,100,000.00 secured by twenty-four (24)
checks drawn against respondent Nicdao’s account with HSLB.The loans totaled
₱2,100,000.00 and they were transacted between respondent Nicdao and Nuguid only.
Nicdao never dealt with petitioner Ching. Based on the factual findings, the CA declared
that Nicdao had already fully paid the loans. In particular, the CA referred to the Planters
Bank demand draft in the amount of ₱1,200,000.00 which, by his own admission,
petitioner Ching had received.

The CA gave credence to the testimony of respondent Nicdao that when she had
fully paid her loans to Nuguid, she tried to retrieve her checks. Nuguid, however,
refused to return the checks to respondent Nicdao. Instead, Nuguid and petitioner
Ching filled up the said checks. Petitioner Ching and Nuguid then put the date October 6,
1997 on all these checks and deposited them the following day. On October 8, 1997,
through a joint demand letter, they informed respondent Nicdao that her checks were
dishonored by HSLB and gave her three days to settle her indebtedness or else face
prosecution for violation of BP 22.

With the finding that respondent Nicdao had fully paid her loan obligations to Nuguid, the
CA declared that she could no longer be held liable for violation of BP 22.

The CA emphasized that the ₱20,000,000.00 check was never delivered by respondent
Nicdao to petitioner Ching. As such, the said check without the details as to the date,
amount and payee, was an incomplete and undelivered instrument when it was stolen
and ended up in petitioner Ching’s hands. On this point, the CA applied Sections 15 and
16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:

The CA held that the ₱20,000,000.00 check was filled up by petitioner Ching without
respondent Nicdao’s authority. Further, it was incomplete and undelivered. Hence,
petitioner Ching did not acquire any right or interest therein and could not assert any
cause of action founded on thestolen checks. Under these circumstances, the CA
concluded that respondent could not be held liable for violation of BP 22.

You might also like