NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND INSOLVENCY LAW – 2H 2020-2021
CASE TITLE Aguilar v. Lightbringers Credit Cooperative G.R. NO. 209605
PONENTE MENDOZA, J. DATE January 12, 2015
DOCTRINE Parties to Negotiable Instruments
A check was a sufficient evidence of a loan transaction. The findings of fact of the trial court, its
calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessments of the probative weight thereof,
as well as its conclusions anchored on the findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.
FACTS Three (3) complaints for sum of money separately filed by respondent Lightbringers Credit Cooperative
against petitioners Aguilar and Calimbas which were consolidated before the First Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan. The complaints alleged that Aguilar and Calimbas were members
of the cooperative who borrowed the following:
1. In Civil Case No. 1429, petitioner Calimbas allegedly borrowed P202,800.18 as evidenced by a
Cash Disbursement Voucher but the net loan was only P60,024.00 as supported by a PNB check;
and
2. In Civil Case No. 1430, petitioner Aguilar allegedly borrowed P126,849.00 as evidenced by Cash
Disbursement Voucher but the net loan was only P76,152.00 as supported by a PNB check.
The petitioners filed their respective answer. They uniformly claimed that the discrepancy between the
principal amount of the loan evidenced by the cash disbursement voucher and the net amount of loan
reflected in the PNB checks showed that they never borrowed the amounts being collected. They asserted
that no interest could be claimed because there was no written agreement as to its imposition.
On the scheduled pre-trial conference, only respondent and its counsel appeared. The MTC proceeded
to present evidence ex parte wherein they presented Manalili, its incumbent General Manager, as its sole
witness. In his testimony, Manalili explained that the discrepancy between the amounts of the loan
reflected in the checks and those in the cash disbursement vouchers were due to the accumulate interests
from previous outstanding obligations, withheld share capital, as well as the service and miscellaneous
fees.
The MCTC resolved the case in its decision:
1. Finding both Calimbas and Aguilar liable to respondent for their respective debts.
2. That PNB checks issued to the petitioners proved the existence of the loan transactions.
3. Their receipts of the loan were proven by their signatures appearing on the dorsal portions of the
checks as well as on the cash disbursement vouchers.
A notice of appeal was filed by the petitioners before the RTC of Bataan. The RTC affirmed the MCTC
Decision. CA denied the appeal and its motion to reconsideration.
ISSUE/S Whether or not there is a contract of loan between the petitioners and respondent
RULING/S The Court ruled in the affirmative. There is a contract of loan between the petitioner and
respondent.
The Court agrees with the findings of fact of the MCTC and the RTC that a check was a sufficient
evidence of a loan transaction. The findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND INSOLVENCY LAW – 2H 2020-2021
of the witnesses and its assessments of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions
anchored on the findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.
There is no dispute that the signatures of the petitioners were present on both the PNB checks and
the cash disbursement vouchers. The checks were also made payable to the order of the petitioners.
Hence, respondent can properly demand that they pay the amounts borrowed.
NOTE:
Weight of check as an evidence of a loan.
1. Pacheco v. Court of Appeals: The Court has expressly recognized a check constitutes an
evidence of indebtedness and is veritable proof of an obligation. Hence, it can be used in lieu
of and for the same purpose as a promissory note.
2. Lozano v. Martinez: A check functions more than a promissory note since it not only contains
an undertaking to pay an amount of money but is an “order addressed to a bank and partakes
of a representation that the drawer has funds on deposit against which the check is drawn,
sufficient to ensure payment upon its presentation to the bank.”
3. Lim v. Mindanao Wines and Liquor Galleria: “a check, the entries of which are in writing,
could prove a loan transaction.”
