Anda di halaman 1dari 6

[G.R. No. L-8155. October 23, 1956.

Facts: While the province of Samar was still occupied by Japanese military forces, a check was issued by said
province to Paulino M. Santos (then the postmaster of Borongan) for the sum of P25,000, drawn against the
Philippine National Bank Cebu Branch. The payee negotiated the check with James McGuire, an American
citizen and resident of the municipality of Borongan. James McGuire presented the check to the municipal
treasurer of Borongan for payment, but the latter (who merely noted it) was not able or did not choose to pay the
same.

James McGuire wrote letters to the Bureau of Posts seeking payment of the check, which were in turn referred to
the PNB. As of this date the province of Samar still had a deposit of P84,287.47 in the PNB. PNB requested
James McGuire to present the check to the provincial treasurer and the provincial auditor for certification. Before
the check could be certified by the authorities concerned as being in order and entitled to priority of payment, the
province of Samar, withdraw the amount of P83,504.07, leaving a balance of only P743.43.

In the meantime, James McGuire transferred his rights to the check to the herein Plaintiffs who, unable to cash it.

Issue: WON defendants herein are solidarily liable to pay the check.

Held: The obligation of the Appellant bank is merely subsidiary. An implied acceptance of the check by
the Appellant bank was thereby created. The request by the Appellant bank from the Bureau of Posts for
photostatic copies of the check and the subsequent requirement by it for its presentation by James McGuire to
the provincial treasurer and the provincial auditor for certification, would be an empty gesture if the Appellant did
not thereby mean to assume the obligation of paying the check and holding sufficient deposit of the drawer for
the purpose. Even so, Appellant’s resulting obligation is merely subsidiary, the province of Samar being primarily
liable to pay the check.

Sumacad vs. Province of Samar


G.R. No. L-8155. October 23, 1956.
100 Phil. 72

FACTS:
A check was issued by province of Samar to Paulino M. Santos drawn against the
Philippine National bank Cebu Branch. The payee negotiated the check with James McGuire.
James McGuire presented the check to the municipal treasurer of Borongan for payment, but
the latter (who merely noted it) was not able or did not choose to pay the same. Upon seeking
payment of the check with Philippine National bank, the latter requested the Bureau of Posts
to furnish it with photostatic copies of the check and requested James McGuire to present the
check to the provincial treasurer and the provincial auditor for certification. Before the check
could be certified, the province of Samar, withdraw its money with PNB and left an
insufficient balance to cover the check. James McGuire transferred hid rights to the check to
the herein plaintiffs who, unable to cash it, filed in the Court of First Instance of Samar.

ISSUE:
Whether PNB is liable for the amount of the check.
DECISION:
YES. An implied acceptance of the check by the appellant bank was thereby created.
The request by the appellant bank from the Bureau of Posts for photostatic copies of the
check and the subsequent requirement by it for its presentation by James McGuire to the
provincial treasurer and the provincial auditor for certification, would be an empty gesture if
the appellant did not thereby mean to assume the obligation of paying the check and holding
sufficient deposit of the drawer for the purpose. Even so, appellant’s resulting obligation is
merely subsidiary, the province of Samar being primarily liable to pay the check.

New Pacific Timber & Supply Co, Inc vs Seneris, 101 SCRA 686; GR No. L-41764, December 19,
1980, digested

Doctrine:

Cashier’s check deemed as cash.

Certification of check by drawee bank equivalent to acceptance.

Facts: In a complaint for a collection of sum of money, petitioner failed to comply with his judgment
obligation in an amicable settlement with the respondent. Hence, a writ of execution was issued for
the amount of P63, 140.00 pursuant to which, petitioner’s properties were levied and was set for an
auction sale. Prior to the set date for the auction sale, petitioner deposited with the Clerk of Court,
CFI, in his capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff, the sum of P63, 130.00 for payment of the judgment
obligation, consisting of P50, 000.00 Cashier’s Check and P13,130.00 in cash.

Private respondent refused to accept the check as well as the cash deposit and requested the
scheduled auction sale. Respondent judge uphold private respondent’s claim that he has the right to
refuse payment by means of a check and cited Section 63 of the Central Bank Act:

“Sec 63. Legal Character – Checks representing deposit money do not have legal tender power and
their acceptance in payment of debts, both public and private, is at the option of the creditor.
Provided, however, that a check which has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor
shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor in cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to
his account.”

And Article 1249 of the New Civil Code which provides for payment of debts in money shall be made
in the currency stipulated or the currency that is legal tender in the Philippines.

Likewise, respondent judge sustained the contention of the private respondent that he has a right to
refuse payment of the amount of P13, 130 in cash because the said amount is less than the
judgment obligation, which is a partial payment as provided in Article 1248 of the New Civil Code.
Petitioner filed an ex-parte motion for issuance of certificate of satisfaction of judgment after his
levied properties were all sold during the auction sale. Petitioner question the order of the judge for
denial of the said motion alleging that said judge capriciously and whimsically abused his discretion
on the ground that there was already a full satisfaction of the judgment before the auction sale was
conducted.

Issue: WON there was a valid refusal to accept the payment of the judgment obligation made by the
petitioner consisting of P50, 000.00 in Cashier’s Check and P13, 130.00 in cash.

Held: No. A cashier’s check of the Equitable Bank Corporation is not an ordinary check. It is a well-
known and accepted practice in the business sector that a Cashier’s Check is deemed as cash.

Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the certification is equivalent to
acceptance. By the certification of drawee bank, the funds represented by the check are transferred
from the credit of the maker to that of the payee or holder, and for all intents and purposes, the
latter becomes the depositor of the drawee bank. Said certification implies that the check is drawn
upon sufficient funds in the hands of the drawee that they have been set apart for its satisfaction,
that they shall be so applied whenever the check is presented for payment. The object of certifying a
check, as regards to both parties, is to enable the holder to use it as money. When the holder
procures the check to be certified, the check operates as an assignment of a part of the funds to the
creditors. Certification of a check is an exception to the rule enunciated under Sec 63 of the CB Act.

Considering that the whole amount deposited by the petitioner consisting of Cashier’s Check of P50,
000.00 and P13, 130.00 in cash covers the judgment obligation of P63,000.00 as mentioned in the
writ of execution, then, we see no valid reason for the private respondent to have refused
acceptance of the payment of the obligation in his favor.

NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. v SENERIS G.R. No. L-41764 December
19, 1980

FACTS:

Petitioner, New Pacific Timber & Supply Co. Inc. was the defendant in a complaint for
collection of money filed by private respondent, Ricardo A. Tong. In this complaint,
respondent Judge rendered a compromise judgment based on the amicable settlement
entered by the parties wherein petitioner will pay to private respondent P54,500.00 at
6% interest per annum and P6,000.00 as attorney's fee of which P5,000.00 has been
paid. Upon failure of the petitioner to pay the judgment obligation, a writ of execution
worth P63,130.00 was issued levied on the personal properties of the petitioner. Before
the date of the auction sale, petitioner deposited with the Clerk of Court in his capacity
as the Ex-Officio Sheriff P50,000.00 in Cashier's Check of the Equitable Banking
Corporation and P13,130.00 in cash for a total of P63,130.00. Private respondent
refused to accept the check and the cash and requested for the auction sale to proceed.
The properties were sold for P50,000.00 to the highest bidder with a deficiency of
P13,130.00.

Petitioner subsequently filed an ex-parte motion for issuance of certificate of satisfaction


of judgment which was denied by the respondent Judge. Hence this present petition,
alleging that the respondent Judge capriciously and whimsically abused his discretion in
not granting the requested motion for the reason that the judgment obligation was fully
satisfied before the auction sale with the deposit made by the petitioner to the Ex-Officio
Sheriff.

In upholding the refusal of the private respondent to accept the check, the respondent
Judge cited Article 1249 of the New Civil Code which provides that payments of debts
shall be made in the currency which is the legal tender of the Philippines and Section 63
of the Central Bank Act which provides that checks representing deposit money do not
have legal tender power. In sustaining the contention of the private respondent to refuse
the acceptance of the cash, the respondent Judge cited Article 1248 of the New Civil
Code which provides that creditor cannot be compelled to accept partial payment unless
there is an express stipulation to the contrary.

APPLICABLE LAWS: Section 63 of the Central Bank Act:

Sec. 63. Legal Character. — Checks representing deposit money do not have legal
tender power and their acceptance in payment of debts, both public and private, is at
the option of the creditor, Provided, however, that a check which has been cleared and
credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor in
cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account.

Article 1249 of the New Civil Code:

Art. 1249. — The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated,
and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal
tender in the Philippines.

The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other


mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been
cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. In the
meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall be held in abeyance.

Art. 1248. Unless there is an express stipulation to that effect, the creditor cannot be
compelled partially to receive the presentations in which the obligation consists. Neither
may the debtor be required to make partial payment.

However, when the debt is in part liquidated and in part unliquidated, the creditor may
demand and the debtor may effect the payment of the former without waiting for the
liquidation of the latter.

ISSUE: Can the check be considered a valid payment of the judgment obligation?

RULING: (directly in SC for a special action of certiorari) YES. It is to be emphasized that


it is a well-known and accepted practice in the business sector that a Cashier's Check is
deemed cash. Moreover, since the check has been certified by the drawee bank, this
certification implies that the check is sufficiently funded in the drawee bank and the
funds will be applied whenever the check is presented for payment. The object of
certifying a check is to enable the holder to use it as money. When the holder procures
the check to be certified, it operates as an assignment of a part of the funds to the
creditors. Hence, the exception provided in Section 63 of the Central Bank Act which
states that checks which have been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor
shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor in cash the amount equal to that which is
credited to his account. The Cashier's Check and the cash are valid payment of the
obligation of the petitioner. The private respondent has no valid reason to refuse the
acceptance of the check and cash as full payment of the obligation.
[G.R. No. L-41764 December 19, 1980]

Facts: Herein petitioner is the defendant in a complaint for collection of a sum of money filed by the private
respondent. A compromise judgment was rendered by the respondent Judge against New Pacific Timber. For
failure of the petitioner to comply with his judgment obligation, a writ of execution was issued for the amount of
P63,130.00 pursuant to which, the Ex-Officio Sheriff levied upon the following personal properties of the
petitioner. Prior to the auction sale, petitioner deposited with the CFI, in his capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff of
Zamboanga City, the sum of P63,130.00

Private respondent refused to accept the check as well as the cash deposit. Private respondent requested the
scheduled auction to proceed if the petitioner cannot produce the cash.

In the course of the proceedings, Deputy Sheriff Castro sold the levied properties item by item to the private
respondent as the highest bidder in the amount of P50,000.00. As a result thereof, the Ex-Officio Sheriff declared
a deficiency of P13,130.00.

Petitioner filed an ex-parte motion for issuance of certificate of satisfaction of judgment. This motion was denied
by the respondent Judge. Petitioner now questions said order as there was already a full satisfaction of the
judgment before the auction sale was conducted.\

Issue: Whether or not the private respondent can validly refuse acceptance of the payment of the judgment
obligation in Cashier’s check which it deposited with the Ex-Officio Sheriff before the date of the scheduled
auction sale.

Held: No valid reason for the private respondent to have refused acceptance of the payment of the obligation in
his favour. It is to be emphasized in this connection that the check deposited by the petitioner in the amount of
P50,000.00 is not an ordinary check but a Cashier’s Check of the Equitable Banking Corporation, a bank of good
standing and reputation. As testified to by the Ex-Officio Sheriff with whom it has been deposited, it is a certified
crossed check. It is a well-known and accepted practice in the business sector that a Cashier’s Check is
deemed as cash. Moreover, since the said check had been certified by the drawee bank, by the
certification, the funds represented by the check are transferred from the credit of the maker to that of
the payee or holder, and for all intents and purposes, the latter becomes the depositor of the drawee
bank, with rights and duties of one in such situation.
The exception to the rule enunciated under Section 63 of the Central Bank Act to the effect “that a check which
has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor in
cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account” shall apply in this case.

GREGORIO ARANETA V. PNB


G.R. No. L-4633, March 31, 1954
Facts:
o Plaintiff filed with the defendant an application for a commercial letter of credit in favor of Allied National Corporation.
o Defendant granted said application and the credit line was opened. Draft was negotiated by the defendant’s correspondent
bank (Barclays) against the plaintiffs credit
Defendant paid Barclays the amount of the draft.
o On the face it matures when it matured the British pound was devaluated.
o Defendant sent the plaintiff a bill (value at drafting) upon maturity, the plaintiff sent a check which was below the amount
(value at maturity), which was
returned without acknowledgement.
Plaintiff retransmitted the check
Defendant issued a receipt that it was only for partial payment
o Defendant debited the latter’s overdraft account
Plaintiff instituted the present action
Issue:
WON appellant should pay the sum of P33,727.92, representing the value of the draft for £4,031.13 pounds negotiated by the
defendant's correspondent bank in
London against the plaintiff's credit on August 30, 1949, when the official parity rate was $4.0325 for every English pound
(WHEN THE BANK WAS DRAWN) OR
should pay to the defendant only the sum of P23,194.37, the equivalent in Philippine Currency of £4,031.13 on December 25,
1949, the date of MATURITY of the
draft, when the rate of exchange was $2.80 3/16.
Ratio:
o Latter’s obligation s determined by the rate of exchange on the date the draft was drawn and presented or negotiation.
o The application provides that the draft must be drawn and presented or negotiated not later than August 31,1949; that the
plaintiff promised and agreed to pay
at, maturity in Philippine currency, the equivalent of any amount that might be drawn or paid upon the faith of the plaintiff's
credit;
o The amount or such portion thereof as may be drawn or paid upon faith of the plaintiff’s credit

ROMAN V. ASIA BANKING


G.R. No. L-17825, June 26, 1922
Facts:
o There was a sale of 2777 bales of tobacco:
seller: Felisa
buyer: Umberto
price: ₱78k
o Umberto issued 4 notes + ₱15k cash to cover the price
o As security for a loan, Umberto issued a quedan in favor of Asia Banking Corp:
covering 576 bales of tobacco
the goods are deposited in the warehouse "por orden" instead of "a la orden" or "sujeto a la orden" of the depositor
there is no statement showing that the goods will be delivered to the bearer, to a specified person, or to a specified person or
his order.
it was indorsed in blank by Umberto
o Later Umberto became insolvent:
an insolvency proceeding was filed.
Felisa remained an unpaid seller
o The CFI ruled in favor of Felisa, holding that:
the vendors lien is superior to the pledge/chattel-mortgage constituted on the goods
Issues:
1. Was the quedan negotiable?
2. Who can claim a superior right over the 576 bales of tobacco?
Ratio:
1. It is a negotiable document:
o it is quite obvious that the deposit evidenced by the receipt in this case was intended to be made subject to the order of the
depositor and therefore negotiable.
o that the words "por orden" are used instead of "a la orden" is very evidently merely a clerical or grammatical error.
o Additionally, the indorsement in blank by Umberto at the time of issue indicated his intent to make it negotiable
o A non-negotiable warehouse receipt must be plainly placed upon its face the words 'non-negotiable'; otherwise, the holder
may treat it was a negotiable
receipt. In this case, no such words were placed.
2. Asia Banking has the better right under the Warehouse Receipts Law:
o Where a negotiable receipts has been issued for goods, no seller's lien or right of stoppage in transitu shall defeat the rights
of any purchaser for value in good
faith to whom such receipt has been negotiated.
o Before an unpaid seller can enforce his lien, the receipt must be surrendered to the warehouseman.
o The warehouseman cannot be compelled to deliver the goods until the receipt is surrendered.
The order appealed from is therefore reversed without costs. So ordered.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai