By:

College of Law JD Program

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTSIMERCANTILE LAW

SYLLABUSIMETHOLOGY

HERi\lANDO B. PEREZ

I. Method of Instruction. - The Socratic method of instruction will be used i. e., recitation-lecture method. Each meeting, the students will be called to recite within the

assigned topic students.

1 1 " 1:.... ..,... I 1 l' 1- ., . ... _ -: -;:

ana the proressor snail ampurwsupptement \.'/11:1t nas oeen recitec oy the

1. Cases assigned. - All cases assigned must be read in the original and the students called to recite are expected to explain/recite the same.

2. Provisions to be memorized. - There are some provisions in the Negotiable fnslrnrnents Law that must be memorized and recited by all students, unless other-vise h'.·rl~inhf'loH' inn.icMerl, to \vit:

fa) First Batch: Sec.] (Form of Negotiable fnstnn11C:nt), Sec. 1 X4 (Promissory Note), Sec. 126 (Bill of Exchange) end Sec. ! 85 (C'h:;:;~:);

(b) Second Batch: Sec. 60 (Liability of the maker), Sec. 61 (Liability of the drawer), Sec. 62 (Liability of the acceptor), Sec. 65 (Warranties of a person negotiating by delivery or qualified indorsement and Sec. 66 (Warranties of a general indorser);

(c) Other provisions to be recited by the students called at random when /S,~~~d9Y the assignment: Sec. 9, Sec. 14, Sec. 15, Sec. 16, 23 and Sec. 5~. /

3. Grading: The final grades will be computed a<; follows: 30~;J recitation, 30°/;) mid-term exnmination and 40% final examination. All test papers shall be corrected and distributed in accordance with the policy of the Dean.

H. Prescribed book. _. The students may use any book on Negotiable Instruments. The professor will use the QUIZZER AND REVIEWER ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW AND RELATED LA \VS by HERNANDO B. PEREZ (distributed by Rex Book Store) and the codal provisions of Negotiable Instruments Law.

st/G " 4 - '2-

c-(1( ({

2

III. SyllAbus;

1. Introduction:

(a) Origin of the Negotiable Instruments Law and its applicability. Cases:

~ (i) Osmena vs. Citibank, N. A., 426 SCRA 159

i

() (ii) BPI Express Card Corporation vs. CA, 296 SCRA 260 I

~ (iii) Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 191 SCRA 411

2. Requisites of negotiability. Cases:

'I (i) Caltex (phils.), Inc. vs. CA, G. R. 97753, Aug. 10, 1992 ~ (ii) Traders Royal Bank, 269 SCRA 15

C (iii) Consolidated Plywood vs, !Fe Leasing, 149 SCRA 448

'/'1

I (iv) Garcia vs. Llamas, 417 SeRA 292

(a) SUIP certain in money

(b) Unconditional promise or order to pay

(c) Determinable future time

(d) Act in addition to payment of money

(e) Matters that may be added or omitted

(1) Payable on demand

(g) Payable to order

(h) Payable to bearer.

(i) Ante-dated and post-dated instruments

(jjlncomplete instruments

(k)Mechanically incomplete but delivered instrument

- -

3

(h) Mechanically complete but undelivered instrument. Case:

~ (i) De la Victoria vs. Burgos, 245 SCRA 374

(m)Rules of construction

(n) Liability of person who did not sign the instrument

(0) Liability ofan agent. Case:

or (i) Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. 116320, Nov. 29, 1999.

(P) Forgery. Cases:

(,0 (i) San Carlos Milling Co. vs. BPI, 50 Phil. 59.

.t (ii) BPI vs. Casa Montessori, 430 SeRA 261.

I'}; (iii) Samsung Construction Co. vs. Far Ea<;t Bank, 436 SeRA 402.

12 (iv) PNB vs. National City Bank, 63 Phi!. 711.

If{ (v) PNB vs. Court of Appeals, 25 SCRA 693. ~ Republic vs. BPI, 10 SCRA 8 .

. ~Vii) Traders Royal Bank vs. Radio Phil., 390 SeRA 608. , ~Vii1}PCIB vs. Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 4~

if (ix) Great Eastern Life Ins. vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Rank, 43 Phil. 679.

I C1 (x) Gernpesaw vs Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 92211), Feb. 9, 1993.

1.Jb (xi) Associated Bank VS. Court of Appeals, G. R. 89802, May 7, 1992.

,,@ii) Jai-Alai Corporation vs. BPI, 66 SCRA 29.

? 1 (xiii) Metrobank vs. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 169.

4

(i) Travel-On vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. 56169, June 26, 1992.

(ii) Yang vs. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA 159.

(a) Absence or failure of consideration (b) Accommodation Party. Cases:

2~ (i) Lim vs. Saban, 447 SCRA 233.

(ii) Prudencio vs. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 7.

(iii) Maulini vs. Serrano, 28 Phil. 640. (iv) Sadaya vs. Sevilla. 19 SCRA 924.

4. Negotiation

(a) Indorsement, how made (b) Kinds of Indorsements

(1) Blank and special indorsements

(3) Qualified Indorsement (4) Conditional Indorsement

(c) How long negotiable character continues (d) Striking out an indorsement

(e) Delivery without indorsement of order instrument (f) Instrument renegotiated to prior party

" 5. Rights of the Holder

(il) Holder in due course. Case:

(i) Vicente R. de Ocampo vs. Gatchalian, 3 SCRA 596. (b) Rights of holder in due course

I. Personal defenses

11. Real defenses

Ill. Right to enforce full amount of the instrument (c) When the instrument is subject to original defenses

(d) When person not holder in due course has rights of holder in due

course

5

6. Liabilities of Parties

(a) Maker. Case:

(i) Astro Electronics vs. Phllguarantee, 411 SeRA 462. (b) Drawer

(c) Drawee

(d) Acceptor

(e) Irregular indorser

(f) Person negotiating by delivery or qualified indorsement (g) General Indorser

(h) Order of liability of indorsers

7. Presentment for Payment (a) When necessary

(b) Requisites of sufficient presentment ( c) Place of presentment

(d) When presentment is not required to charge the drawer

(e) When presentment is not required to charge the indorser

- . .._

(f) When delay in presentment is excused

(g) When presentment maybe dispensed with (h) Dishonorby non-payment

(i) Immediate right of recourse. Case

(i) Tuazon vs. Heirs of Bartolome Ramos, 463 SCRA 408. 0) Payment in due course

8 .. Notice of Dishonor

(a) Who must be given dishonor

(b) Who need not be given notice of dishonor

(c) Effect of failure to give notice of dishonor. Case: (i) Gullas vs. PNB, 62 PhiL 519.

(d) Who may give notice of dishonor

(e) Effect of notice of dishonor given by the holder

(f) Effect of notice of dishonor given by a party entitled 10 give notice

. ,

(a) Form ofnot;('p

'-0.1' -. ---_. - - ~-- ----

6

(il) Nmicc to au agent

(i) Time to give notice of dishonor

i. Parties residing at the same place

it Parties residing at different places

G) Where notice of dishonor must be sent

(k) Waiver of notice of dishonor

(1). Notice of dishonor dispensed with (m)Delay excused

(n) Notice of dishonor to drawer not required (0) Notice of dishonor to indorser not required

9. Discharge of Negotiable Instruments

(a) How negotiable instrument is discharged

(b) When person secondarily liable is discharged (c) Effects of payment by person secondarily liable (d) Alteration. Case:

(i) Montinola vs. Philippine National Bank, 88 Phil. 178.

1. Spoliation

ii. Material alterations

iii. Immaterial alterations

BILLS OF EXCHANGE

10. Form and Interpretation

(a) Bills of exchange defined

(b) Biil not an assignment of fund (c) Inland and foreign bills

(d) When a bill maybe treated as a note (e) Referee in case of need

11. Acceptance

(a) How made

(b) Time allotted to the drawee to accept

(c) Constructive and implied acceptance

8

(i) Effects of crossing a check. Cases:

(i) pcm vs. Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 446.

(ii). Trader's Royal Bank vs. Radio Phil. 390 SCRA 608. (iii) Pio Barretto Realty vs. CA, 360 SeRA 126 .

. ' .

ii. Time of presentment

1. Effect of delay in presentment iii.Effect of certification

iv.Check not an assignment of fund .

;>

1. Liability of drawee to drawer "

v.NOW Accountt.Relationship between bank and Depositor Cases: (i) People vs. Reyes, 454 SCRA 636.

(ii) Associated Bank vs. Tan, 446 SeRA 282.

18. Definitions

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS LA \V

1. Introduction

2. The Issue of Warehouse Receipts

3. Obligations and Rights of Warehousemen upon their receipts

4. Negotiation and Transfer of Receipts

5. Criminal Offenses

6. Interpretation

GENERAL BONDED WAREHOUSE ACT

1. General Bonded Warehouse Act