Montinola vs. PNB

22
Enrique P. Montinola vs. Philippine National Bank Reported by: Yvette Lim (2A)

description

PPT Report

Transcript of Montinola vs. PNB

Slide 1

Enrique P. Montinola vs. Philippine National BankReported by: Yvette Lim (2A)FACTS OF THE CASEIn the months of April to May 1942, the provinces of Misamis Oriental and Lanao is on the verge of the Japanese Occupation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

MARIANO V. RAMOS Disbursing Officer of the USAFFE

MISSION 1: To procure cash advance amounting to P800,000 for USAFFE

Pedro Encarnacion Provincial Treasurer of LanaoP300,000 in emergency notesP500,000 check

MISSION 2:Cash the P500,000 checkUBALDO D. LAYAProvincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental

Gave: P400,000 in Emergency Notes P100,000 Check No. 1382 drawn on PNBFACTS OF THE CASEMISSION 3Cash the P100,000 PNB Check

FACTS OF THE CASE

After incarceration: December 1944 -January 1945

INDORSED THE PNB CHECK TOENRIQUE MONTINOLAMONTINOLAS STORY

On June 1944, Ramos needing money to buy medicine and food offer to sell the check.Agreed to indorse WHOLE check for 850,000 Japanese Military NotesPayable in 5 installments Balance of 400,000 in kind

EVIDENCED BY THE ENDORSEMENT APPEARING AT THE BACK OF THE CHECK

EXHIBIT A-1Pay to the order of Enrique P. Montinola517 Isabel StreetM.V. RAMOSMONTINOLAS STORY

That the check is partly burned blotted, and mutilated because Ramos demanded the return of the checks with bodily harm

The face of the instrument the words AGENT OF PHIL. NATIONAL BANK appearsRAMOSS STORYAgreed to indorse only P30,000 out of the P100,000. 90,000 Jap Mil NotesTwo checks: 20,000 and 25,000Leaving 45,000 unpaid

Pay to the order of Enrique P. Montinola P30,000 only. The balance to be deposited in the Philippine National Bank to the credit of M.V. Ramos.COURTS RESOLUTION

CFI

WITNESSESCOURTS RESOLUTIONThe endorsement does not cover the whole check but P30,000 only.

2. The phrase Agent, Phil. National Bank were added or placed in the instrument after it was issued by Provincial Treasurer Laya. ISSUEW/N MONTINOLA IS A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE?LAWSec. 52.What constitutes a holder in due course.- A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions:

(a) That it is complete and regular upon its face;

(b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it has been previously dishonored, if such was the fact;

(c) That he took it in good faith and for value;

(d) That at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.

(a) That it is complete and regular upon its face;

COMPLETE/INCOMPLETEMaterial particular BLANK (amount, person to be paid)DeliveredFollows requisites in Section 1REGULARAlteration on the FACE (which can be identified by mere inspection)

ALTERATION WHEN THE PHRASE AGENT, PHIL. NATIONAL BANK WAS ADDED(b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it has been previously dishonored, if such was the fact;

OVERDUEBecame a holder after maturityMontinola received the check, it was long over due;Montinola is only an assignee; amount indorsed was not for the full amount of the checkHOLDERAs the payee or indorsee of a bill or note

(c) That he took it in good faith and for value;

GOOD FAITH

Montinola is not in good faith since he has not paid the full amount of 90,000 JMN.Montinola knew that there is a possibility the check is worthless (Emergency Notes are not used during Japanese occupation)(d) That at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.

DEFECT

Montinola knew the check was issued to Ramos not in his PRIVATE CAPACITY but as disbursing officer.RULINGMONTINOLA IS not A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE