PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC.
, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
MAURICIO A. SORIANO, ET AL., defendant-appellees.
- April 18, 1958 Enrique Montinola sought to purchase from the Manila Post Office ten (10) money orders of P200.00
each payable to E.P. Montinola
-Montinola offered to pay for them with a private checks were not generally accepted in payment of money orders
-the teller advised him to see the Chief of the Money Order Division, but instead of doing so, Montinola managed to
leave building with his own check and the ten(10) money orders without the knowledge of the teller.
- instructing them not to pay anyone of the money orders The Bank of America received a copy of said notice three days
later.
-following day it deposited the same with the Bank of America, and one day thereafter the latter cleared it with the
Bureau of Posts and received from the latter its face value of P200.00.
-Mauricio A. Soriano, Postmaster Enrico Palomar, notified the Bank of America that money order No. 124688 attached to
his letter had been found to have been irregularly issued
- the amount it represented had been deducted from the bank's clearing account
-appellant requested the Postmaster General to reconsider the action taken by his office deducting the sum of P200.00
from the clearing account of the Bank of America, but his request was denied.
- Montinola was charged with theft in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 43866) but after trial he
was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, GOLDEN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., LUCIA CASTILLO, MAGNO CASTILLO and GLORIA
CASTILLO, respondents.
-In January 1979, a certain Eduardo Gomez opened an account with Golden Savings and deposited over a period of two
months 38 treasury warrants with a total value of P1,755,228.37. They were all drawn by the Philippine Fish Marketing
Authority and purportedly signed by its General Manager and countersigned by its Auditor. Six of these were directly
payable to Gomez while the others appeared to have been indorsed by their respective payees, followed by Gomez as
second indorser.1
-all these warrants were subsequently indorsed by Gloria Castillo as Cashier of Golden Savings and deposited to its
Savings Account Metrobank in Mindoro for clearing. Forwarded in Bureau of treasury.
-More than two weeks after the deposits, Gloria Castillo went to the Calapan branch several times to ask whether the
warrants had been cleared. not allowed to withdraw from his account.
-as an accommodation for a "valued client," the petitioner says it finally decided to allow Golden Savings to withdraw
from the proceeds of the warrants.
-Metrobank informed Golden Savings that 32 of the warrants had been dishonored by the Bureau of Treasury on July 19,
1979, and demanded the refund by Golden Savings of the amount it had previously withdrawn, to make up the deficit in
its account. The demand was rejected. Metrobank then sued Golden Savings in the Regional Trial Court of Mindoro.
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents.
-Angel dela Cruz delivered the said certificates of time (CTDs) to herein plaintiff in connection with his purchased of fuel
products from the latter
-Sometime in March 1982, Angel dela Cruz informed Mr. Timoteo Tiangco, the Sucat Branch Manger, that he lost all the
certificates of time deposit in dispute. Mr. Tiangco advised said depositor to execute and submit a notarized Affidavit of Loss
-Angel dela Cruz negotiated and obtained a loan from defendant bank in the amount of Eight Hundred Seventy Five Thousand
Pesos (P875,000.00). On the same date, said depositor executed a notarized Deed of Assignment of Time Deposit
-"full control of the indicated time deposits from and after date" of the assignment and further authorizes said bank to pre-
terminate, set-off and "apply the said time deposits to the payment of whatever amount or amounts may be due" on the loan
upon its maturity
November, 1982, Mr. Aranas, Credit Manager of plaintiff Caltex (Phils.) Inc., went to the defendant bank's Sucat branch and
presented for verification the CTDs declared lost by Angel dela Cruz alleging that the same were delivered to herein plaintiff
"as security for purchases made with Caltex Philippines, Inc." by said depositor
-On November 26, 1982, defendant received a letter (Defendant's Exhibit 563) from herein plaintiff formally informing it of its
possession of the CTDs in question and of its decision to pre-terminate the same
-On December 8, 1982, plaintiff was requested by herein defendant to furnish the former "a copy of the document evidencing
the guarantee agreement with Mr. Angel dela Cruz" as well as "the details of Mr. Angel dela Cruz" obligation against which
plaintiff proposed to apply the time deposits. No copy of the requested documents was furnished herein defendant.
- Petitioner's insistence that the CTDs were negotiated to it begs the question. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, an
instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee
the holder thereof, and a holder may be the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer
21
thereof. In the present case, however, there was no negotiation in the sense of a transfer of the legal title to the CTDs in
22
favor of petitioner in which situation
-Aside from the fact that the CTDs were only delivered but not indorsed, the factual findings of respondent court quoted at
the start of this opinion show that petitioner failed to produce any document evidencing any contract of pledge or guarantee
agreement between it and Angel de la Cruz. Consequently, the mere delivery of the CTDs did not legally vest in petitioner
25
any right effective against and binding upon respondent bank
NORBERTO TIBAJIA, JR. and CARMEN TIBAJIA, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and EDEN TAN, respondents.
-a suit for collection of a sum of money filed by Eden Tan against the Tibajia spouses.
-the Deputy Sheriff filed a return stating that a deposit made... by the Tibajia spouses in the Regional Trial Court of
Kalookan City in the amount of Four Hundred Forty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Pesos (P442,750.00) in
another case, had been garnished by him.
-the Regional Trial Court... rendered its decision in Civil Case No. 54863 in favor of the plaintiff Eden Tan, ordering
the Tibajia spouses to pay her an amount in excess of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00)... the Court of
Appeals modified the decision by reducing the award of... moral and exemplary damages.
-the garnished funds which by then were on deposit with the cashier of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro
Manila, were levied upon.
-he Tibajia spouses delivered to Deputy Sheriff Eduardo Bolima the total money judgment
-Private respondent, Eden Tan, refused to accept the payment made by the Tibajia spouses and instead insisted
that the garnished funds deposited with the cashier of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila be
withdrawn to satisfy the judgment obligation.
-defendant spouses (petitioners) filed a motion to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the judgment debt
had already been paid.
the motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that payment in cashier's check is not payment... in legal
tender and that payment was made by a third party other than the defendant.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE RICARDO D. GALANO, Court of First Instance of Manila
-After trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch 13, then presided over by the late Judge Jesus P. Morfe rendered
judgment on June 29, 1972, in favor of private respondent Amelia Tan and against petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc.
-Notice of judgment was sent by the Court of Appeals to the trial court and on dates subsequent thereto, a motion for
reconsideration was filed by respondent Amelia Tan, duly opposed by petitioner PAL.
On May 23,1977, the Court of Appeals rendered its resolution denying the respondent's motion for reconsideration for lack of
merit
-Notice of judgment was sent by the Court of Appeals to the trial court and on dates subsequent thereto, a motion for
reconsideration was filed by respondent Amelia Tan, duly opposed by petitioner PAL.
On May 23,1977, the Court of Appeals rendered its resolution denying the respondent's motion for reconsideration for lack of
meri
-the petitioner filed an opposition to the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution stating that it had already fully
paid its obligation to plaintiff through the deputy sheriff of the respondent court
-ordering the executing sheriff Emilio Z. Reyes to appear with his return and explain the reason for his failure to surrender the
amounts paid to him by petitioner PAL. However, the order could not be served upon Deputy Sheriff Reyes who had
absconded or disappeared.
-On April 19, 1978, respondent Amelia Tan filed a motion to withdraw "Motion for Partial Alias Writ of Execution" with
Substitute Motion for Alias Writ of Execution.
amelia Tan was found to have been wronged by Philippine Air Lines (PAL). She filed her complaint in 1967. After ten (10) years of
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 declared as rightfully hers. Through absolutely no fault of her
own, Ms. Tan has been deprived of what, technically, she should have been paid from the start, before 1967, without need of her
going to court to 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 on certiorari the decision of Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari against the order of the Court
of First Instance (CFI) which issued an alias writ of execution against them. Petitioner alleged that the payment in check had already
been effected to the absconding sheriff, satisfying the judgment.
ANG TEK LIAN v. CA, GR No. L-2516, 1950-09-25 (
For having issued a rubber check, Ang Tek Lian was Convicted of estafa... knowing he had no funds therefor, Ang
Tek Lian drew... the check... upon the China Banking Corporation... payable to the order of "cash".
He delivered it to Lee Hua Hong in exchange for money which the... latter handed in the act.
the check was presented by Lee Hua Hong to the drawee bank for payment, but it was dishonored for insufficiency
of funds
Petitioner drew a check payable to the order of “cash” knowing that he had no funds. He delivered it in exchange of money.
Petitioner was found guilty of estafa, but petitioner argued that the check had not been indorsed by him, hence, he should not be
held guilty thereof.
Philippine National Bank vs. Erlando Rodriguez and Norma Rodriguez
G.R. No. 170325, September 26, 2008
FACTS:
Spouses Rodriguez were engaged in informal lending business and had discounting arrangement with the Philnabank
Employees Savings and Loan Association (PEMSLA), an association of PNB employees. The association maintained
current and savings account with Philippine National Bank (PNB). PEMSLA regularly granted a loan to its members and
Spouses Rodriguez would rediscount the post dated checks issued to members whenever the association was short of
funds. As it was customary, the spouses would replace the post dated checks with their own checks issued in the name
of the members.
PEMSLA has a policy that members with outstanding debts would not be granted loan. To subvert this policy, some
PEMSLA officers devised a scheme to obtain additional loans despite their outstanding loan accounts. They took out
loans in the names of unknowing members, without the knowledge or consent of the latter. The officers carried this out
by forging the endorsement of the named payees in the checks. In return, the spouses issued their personal checks in
the name of the members and delivered the checks to an officer of PEMSLA. The PEMSLA checks, on the other hand,
were deposited by the spouses to their account. Rodriguez checks were deposited directly by PEMSLA to its saving
account without any endorsement from the named payees. This irregular procedure was made possible through the
facilitation of Edmundo Palermo Jr., treasurer of PEMSLA and bank teller in the PNB branch. This became the usual
practice for the parties. When PNB found out this fraudulent acts, it closed the current account of PEMSLA to put a stop
to this scheme. As a result, the PEMSLA checks deposited by the spouses were returned or dishonored for the reason
“account closed”. The amounts of the checks issued were duly debited from the Rodriguez account. Thus, the spouses
incurred losses from the rediscounting transactions so they filed a civil complaint for damages against PEMSLA, the
Multi-Purpose Cooperative of Philnabankers (MCP), and PNB.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MANILA OIL REFINING, GR No. 18103, 1922-06-08
Facts:
On May 8, 1920, the manager and the treasurer of the Manila Oil Refining & By-Products Company, Inc., executed
and delivered to the Philippine National Bank... we promise to pay to the order of the Philippine National Bank
sixty-one thousand only pesos at Philippine National Bank, Manila, P. I.
to appear in my name and confess judgment for the above sum with interest,... The Manila Oil Refining & By-
Products Company, Inc. failed to pay the promissory note on demand... brought action in the Court of First Instance
of Manila, to recover P61,000, the amount of the note, together with interest and costs.
motion confessing judgment.
defendant, however, in a sworn declaration, objected strongly to the unsolicited representation of attorney
Recto.
Antonio Gonzalez appeared for the defendant and filed a demurrer, and when this was overruled, presented an
answer.
trial judge rendered judgment on the motion of attorney Recto in the terms of the complaint.
These members of the bar responded promptly to the request of the court, and their memoranda have proved
highly useful in the solution of the question
The attorney for the appellee contends that the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031) expressly recognizes
judgment notes, and that they are enforcible under the regular procedure. The Negotiable Instruments Law, in
section 5, provides that "The negotiable character of an... instrument otherwise negotiable is not affected by a
provision which "* * * (b) Authorizes a confession of judgment if the instrument be not paid at maturity." We do
not believe, however, that this provision of law can be taken to sanction judgments by confession, because it is... a
portion of a uniform law which merely provides that, in jurisdictions where judgment notes are recognized, such
clauses shall not affect the negotiable character of the instrument. Moreover, the same section of the Negotiable
Instrument
