Nego Case Digests - Sec. 1
-
Upload
jason-certeza -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Nego Case Digests - Sec. 1
-
8/6/2019 Nego Case Digests - Sec. 1
1/5
NEGO CASES SEC. 1
ROMAN CATHOLIC OF MALOLOS V. IAC
FACTS:
Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land. It then entered into a contract of lease agreement
with Robes-Fransisco Realty for the parcel of land. The agreement was that there would be
downpayment plus installments with interest. Robes-Fransisco was then in default. Knowing that it
was in its payment of the installments, it requested for the restructuring of the installment
payments but was denied. It then asked for grace period to pay the same and tendered a check
thereafter. Such was refused and the contract was cancelled.
HELD:
A check whether a managers check or ordinary check is not legal tender and an offer of a check in
payment of a debt is not valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.
As this is the case, the subsequent consignation of the check didn't operate to discharge Robes-
Fransisco from its obligation to petitioner.
BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION V. CA
FACTS:
Marasigan was the holder of a BPI credit card. Due to his delinquency in payment, immediate demand
was given by BPI to pay account. Marasigan issued a postdated check. The check was thereafter
kept in custiody by BPI and card was temporarily suspended. And on a relevant date, Marasiganafter eating in Caf Adriatico tried to use his card to pay but it was dishonored.
HELD:
The issuance of the postdated check was not effective payment on the part of Marasigan and thus, the
bank was justified in suspending temporarily his use of the credit card. A check is only a
substitute for money and not money, and the delivery of such instrument doesn't itself operate as
payment.
CALTEX V. CA- Negotiable Instruments
FACTS:
Security bank issued Certificates of Time Deposits to Angel dela Cruz. The same were given by Dela
Cruz to petitioner in connection to his purchase of fuel products of the latter. On a later date, Dela Cruz
approached the bank manager, communicated the loss of the certificates and requested for a
reissuance. Upon compliance with some formal requirements, he was issued replacements.
Thereafter, he secured a loan from the bank where he assigned the certificates as security. Here
-
8/6/2019 Nego Case Digests - Sec. 1
2/5
-
8/6/2019 Nego Case Digests - Sec. 1
3/5
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 withoutinforming respondent bank thereof at any time. Unfortunately for petitioner, although the CTDs are
bearer instruments, a valid negotiation thereof for the true purpose and agreement between it and De laCruz, as ultimately ascertained, requires both delivery and indorsement. For, although petitioner
seeks to deflect this fact, the CTDs were in reality 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 payment for the fuel
products or as a security has been dissipated and resolved in favor of the latter by petitioner's own
authorized and responsible representative himself.
In a letter dated November 26, 1982 addressed to respondent Security Bank, J.Q. Aranas, Jr.,
Caltex Credit Manager, wrote: ". . . These certificates of deposit were negotiated to us by Mr.
Angel dela Cruz to guarantee his purchases of fuel products." This admission is conclusive
upon petitioner, its protestations notwithstanding. Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or
representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon.
INCIONG V. CA
FACTS:
A promissory note was issued by petitioner together with 2 others jointly and severally, to make them
liable to PBC. Thereafter was a default on the payment of the note. PBC proceeded against Inciong and
in the action filed by the bank, the court decided in its favor.
HELD:
Where the promissory note expressly states that the three signatures therein are jointly and severally
liable, any one or some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligationthe choiceis left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection.
TRADERS ROYAL BANK V. CA
FACTS:
Filriters through a Detached Agreement transferred ownership to Philfinance a Central Bank
Certificate of Indebtedness. It was only through one of its officers by which the CBCI was conveyed
without authorization from the company. Petitioner and Philfinance later entered into a
Repurchase agreement, on which petitioner bought the CBCI from Philfinance. The latter
agreed to repurchase the CBCI but failed to do so. When the petitioner tried to have it registered in its
name in the CB, the latter didn't want to recognize the transfer.
-
8/6/2019 Nego Case Digests - Sec. 1
4/5
HELD:
The CBCI is not a negotiable instrument. The instrument provides for a promise to pay the
registered owner Filriters. Very clearly, the instrument was only payable to Filriters. It lacked the
words of negotiability which should have served as an expression of the consent that the
instrument may be transferred by negotiation.
The language of negotiability which characterize a negotiable paper as a credit instrument is its
freedom to circulate as a substitute for money. Hence, freedom of negotiability is the touchstone
relating to the protection of holders in due course, and the freedom of negotiability is the foundation
for the protection, which the law throws around a holder in due course. This freedom in
negotiability is totally absent in a certificate of indebtedness as it merely acknowledges to
pay a sum of money to a specified person or entity for a period of time.
The transfer of the instrument from Philfinance to TRB was merely an assignment, and is not
governed by the negotiable instruments law. The pertinent question then iswas the transfer of the
CBCI from Filriters to Philfinance and subsequently from Philfinance to TRB, in accord with
existing law, so as to entitle TRB to have the CBCI registered in its name with the Central Bank?
Clearly shown in the record is the fact that Philfinances title over CBCI is defective since itacquired the instrument from Filriters fictitiously. Although the deed of assignment stated that the
transfer was for value received, there was really no consideration involved. What happened was
Philfinance merely borrowed CBCI from Filriters, a sister corporation. Thus, for lack of any
consideration, the
assignment made is a complete nullity. Furthermore, the transfer wasn't in conformity with the
regulations set by the CB. Giving more credence to rule that there was no valid transfer or
assignment to petitioner.
SESBRENO V. CA
FACTS:
Petitioner made a placement with Philfinance. The latter delivered to him documents, some of which was
a promissory note from Delta Motors and a post-dated check. The post-dated checks were dishonored.This prompted petitioner to ask for the promissory note from DMC and it was discovered that the note
issued by DMC was marked as non-negotiable. As Sesbreno failed to recover his money, he filed case
against DMC and Philfinance.
HELD:
The non-negotiability of the instrument doesnt mean that it is non-assignable or transferable. It
may still be assigned or transferred in whole or in part, even without the consent of the promissory note,
since consent is not necessary for the validity of the assignment.
In assignment, the assignee is merely placed in the position of the
assignors and acquires the instrument subject to all the defenses that
might have been set up against the original payee.
SERRANO V. CA
-
8/6/2019 Nego Case Digests - Sec. 1
5/5
FACTS:
Serrano bought some jewelry from Ribaya. Due to need of finances, she decided to have the jewelry
pawned. She instructed her secretary to do so for her, which the secretary did but absconded after
receiving the proceeds. It is to be noted that the pawnshop ticket indicated that the
jewelry was redeemable by presentation by the bearer. Afterwards, there was a lead on where thejewelry was pawned. An investigation was done to verify the suspicion. The jewelry was to be sold in a
public auction then. The petitioner and police authorities informed the pawnshop owner not to sell the jewelry as she was the rightful owner thereof. Despite of this however, the jewelry was
redeemed by a Tomasa de Leon who presented the pawnshop ticket.
HELD:
Having been informed by the petitioner and the police that jewelry pawned to it was either stolen or
involved in an embezzlement of the proceeds of the pledge, pawnbroker became duty bound to hold the
things pledged and to give notice to the petitioner and authorities of any effort to redeem
them. Such a duty was imposed by Article 21 of the CC. The circumstance that the pawn ticket stated
that the pawn was redeemable by the bearer, didnt dissolve this duty. The pawn ticket wasnt a
negotiable instrument under the NIL, nor was it a negotiable document of title under Article 1507
of the CC.