Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > September 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15380 September 30, 1960 - CHAN WAN v. TAN KIM, ET AL.

109 Phil 706:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15380. September 30, 1960.]

CHAN WAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TAN KIM and CHEN SO, Defendants-Appellees.

Manuel Domingo for Appellant.

C. M. de los Reyes for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS; CROSSED CHECKS; ABSENCE OF DUE PRESENTMENT; LIABILITY OF DRAWER. — The drawer in drawing the check engaged that on due presentment, the check would be paid, and that if it be dishonored, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder. Wherefore, in the absence of due presentment, the drawer did not become liable.

2. ID.; ID.; CHECK CROSSED SPECIALLY IN FAVOR OF A CERTAIN BANK; HOW COLLECTED; LIABILITY OF DRAWEE OR WRONG PAYMENT. — Where a check is crossed specially in favor of a certain bank, the check is generally deposited with the bank mentioned in the crossing, so that the latter may take charge of the collection. If it is not presented by said bank for payment, the drawee is liable to the true owner, in case of payment to persons not entitled thereto.

3. ID.; ID.; HOLDER WHO IS NOT HOLDER IN DUE COURT CAN STILL RECOVER ON THE CHECK. — The Negotiable Instruments law does not provide that a holder who is not a holder in due course, may not in any case, recover on the instrument. The only disadvantage of a holder who is not a holder in due course is that the negotiable instrument is subject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


This suit to collect eleven checks totalling P4,290.00 is here for decision because it involves no issue of fact.

Such checks payable to "cash or bearer" and drawn by defendant Tan Kim (the other defendant is her husband) upon the Equitable Banking Corporation, were all presented for payment by Chan Wan to the drawee bank, but they "were all dishonored and returned to him unpaid due to insufficient funds and/or causes attributable to the drawer."cralaw virtua1aw library

At the hearing of the case, in the Manila court of first instance, the plaintiff did not take the witness stand. His attorney, however, testified only to identify the checks — which are Exhibits A to K — plus the letters of demand upon defendants.

On the other hand, Tan Kim declared without contradiction that the checks had been issued to two persons named Pinong and Muy for some shoes the former had promised to make and "were intended as mere receipts."

In view of such circumstances, the court declined to order payment for two principal reasons: (a) plaintiff failed to prove he was a holder in due course, and (b) the checks being crossed checks should not have been presented to the drawee for "payment," but should have been deposited instead with the bank mentioned in the crossing.

It may be stated in this connection, that defendants asserted a counterclaim, the court dismissed it for failure of proof, and from such dismissal they did not appeal.

The only issue is, therefore, the plaintiff’s right to collect on the eleven commercial documents.

The Negotiable Instruments Law regulating the issuance of negotiable checks, the rights and the liabilities arising therefrom, does not mention "crossed checks." Art. 541 of the Code of Commerce refers to such instruments. 1 The bills of Exchange Act of England of 1882, contains several provisions about them, some of which are quoted in the margin. 2 In Philippine National Bank v. Zulueta, 101 Phil., 1071; 55 Off. Gaz., 222, we applied some provisions of said Bills of Exchange Act because the Negotiable Instruments Law, originating from England and codified in the United States, permits resort thereto in matters not covered by it and local legislation. 3

Eight of the checks here in question bear across their face two parallel transverse lines between which these words are written: non- negotiable - China Banking Corporation. These checks have, therefore, been crossed specially to the China Banking Corporation, and should have been presented for payment by China Banking, and not by Chan Wan. 4 Inasmuch as Chan Wan did present them for payment himself - the Manila court said - there was no proper presentment, and the liability did not attach to the drawer.

We agree to the legal premises and conclusion. It must be remembered, at this point, that the drawer in drawing the check engaged that "on due presentment, the check would be paid, and that if it be dishonored . . . he will pay the amount thereof to the holder." 5 Wherefore, in the absence of due presentment, the drawer did not become liable.

Nevertheless we find, on the backs of the checks, endorsements which apparently show they had been deposited with the China Banking Corporation and were, by the latter, presented to the drawee bank for collection. For instance, on the back of the check Exhibit A (same as in Exh. B), this endorsement appears:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For deposit to the account of White House Shoe Supply with the China Banking Corporation."cralaw virtua1aw library

and then this:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Cleared through the clearing office Central Bank of the Philippines. All prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed. China Banking Corporation."cralaw virtua1aw library

And on the back of Exh. G:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For deposit to the credit of our account. Viuda e Hijos de Chua Chiong Pio. People’s Shoe Company."

followed by the endorsement of China Banking Corporation as in Exhibits A and B. All the crossed checks have the "clearance" endorsement of China Banking Corporation.

These circumstances would seem to show deposit of the checks with China Banking Corporation and subsequent presentation by the latter through the clearing office; but as drawee had no funds, they were unpaid and returned, some of them stamped "account closed." How they reached his hands, plaintiff did not indicate. Most probably, as the trial court surmised, - this is not a finding of fact — he got them after they had been thus returned, because he presented them in court with such "account closed" stamps, without bothering to explain. Naturally and rightly, the lower court held him not to be a holder in due course under the circumstances, since he knew, upon taking them up, that the checks had already been dishonored. 6

Yet it does not follow as a legal proposition, that simply because he was not a holder in due course, Chan Wan could not recover on the checks. The Negotiable Instruments Law does not provide that a holder 7 who is not a holder in due course, may not in any case, recover on the instrument. If B purchases an overdue negotiable promissory note signed by A, he is not a holder in due course; but he may recover from A, 8 if the latter has no valid excuse for refusing payment. The only disadvantage of a holder who is not a holder in due course is that the negotiable instrument is subject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable. 9

Now what defenses did the defendant Tan Kim prove? The lower court’s decision does not mention any, evidently His Honor had in mind the defense pleaded in defendant’s answer, but thought it unnecessary to specify, because the crossing" and presentation incidents sufficed to bar recovery, in his opinion.

Tan Kim admitted on cross-examination either that the checks had been issued as evidence of debts to Pinong and Muy, and/or that they had been issued in payment of shoes which Pinong had promised to make for her.

Seeming to imply that Pinong had failed to make the shoes, she asserted Pinong had "promised to pay the checks for me." Yet she did not complete the idea, perhaps because she was just answering cross-questions, her main testimony having referred merely to their counter-claim.

Needless to say, if it were true that the checks had been issued in payment for shoes that were never made and delivered, Tan Kim would have a good defense as against a holder who is not a holder in due course. 10

Considering the deficiency of important details on which a fair adjudication of the parties’ rights depends, we think the record should be and is hereby returned, in the interest of justice, to the court below for additional evidence, and such further proceedings as are not inconsistent with this opinion. With the understanding that, as defendants did not appeal, their counterclaim must he and is hereby definitely dismissed. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Sec. 541. — The maker or any legal holder of a check shall be entitled to indicate therein that it be paid to a certain banker or institution, which he shall do by writing across the face the name of said banker or institution, or only the words "and company."

The payment made to a person other than the banker or institution shall not exempt the person on whom it is drawn, if the payment was not correctly made.

2. 76. [General and Special Crossings Defined. ] — (1) Where a check bears across its face an addition of —

(a) The words "and company" or any abbreviation thereof between two parallel transverse lines, either with or without the words "not negotiable;" or

(b) Two parallel transverse lines simply, either with or without the words "not negotiable;" that addition constitutes a crossing, and the cheque is crossed generally.

(2) Where a cheque bears across its face an addition of the name of a banker, either with or without the words "not negotiable," that addition constitutes a crossing, and the cheque is crossed specially and to that banker.

79. . . . (2) Where the banker on whom a cheque is drawn which is so crossed nevertheless pays the same, or pays a cheque crossed generally otherwise than to a banker, or if crossed specially otherwise than to the banker to whom it is crossed, or his agent for collection being a banker, he is liable to the true owner of the cheque for any loss he may sustain owing to the cheque having been so paid. (Taken from Brannan’s Negotiable Instruments Law, 6th Ed. 1250-1251.)

3. Sec. 196, Negotiable Instruments Law.

4. If it is not presented by said Bank for payment, the drawee runs the risk, in case of payment to persons not entitled thereto. So the practice is for the drawee to refuse when presented by individuals. The check is generally deposited with the bank mentioned in the crossing, so that the latter may take charge of the collection.

5. Sec. 61. Negotiable Instruments Law.

6. Sec. 52 (b), Negotiable Instruments Law.

7. He was a holder all right, because he had possession of the checks that were payable to bearer.

8. Sec. 51. Negotiable Instruments Law.

9. SEC. 58. Negotiable Instruments Law.

10. Lack of consideration is a defense. (Sec. 28, Negotiable Instruments Law.)




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12645 September 15, 1960 - JUANA PADRON VDA. DE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-14179 September 15, 1960 - PERMANENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. JUAN FRIVALDO

    109 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-13943 September 19, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELIANO ARRANCHADO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-13815 September 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS OYCO

    109 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. L-14740 September 26, 1960 - ANDRES SANTOS, ET AL. v. HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ETC.

    109 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14939 September 26, 1960 - ELVIRA VIDAL TUASON DE RICKARDS v. ANDRES F. GONZALES

    109 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-12298 September 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO AGARIN

    109 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. L-12906 September 29, 1960 - DUMANGAY GUITING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-13255 September 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE COJUANGCO

    109 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13475 September 29, 1960 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-15226 September 29, 1960 - LEE GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-10119 September 30, 1960 - RAFAEL LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 462

  • G.R. Nos. L-10352-53 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO MANlGBAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-11329 September 30, 1960 - CIPRIANO B. MOTOS v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-11440 September 30, 1960 - SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-12030 September 30, 1960 - JOSE J. ROTEA v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    109 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-12149 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF EMILIO CANDELARIA, ETC. v. LUISA ROMERO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-12328 September 30, 1960 - CARLOS J. RIVERA v. TOMAS T. TIRONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-12353 September 30, 1960 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-12641 September 30, 1960 - EMILIANA C. ESTRELLA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 514

  • G.R. Nos. L-12664-65 September 30, 1960 - ANTONINO LAZARO, ET AL. v. FIDELA R. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-12894 September 30, 1960 - LILIA JUANA BARLES, ET AL. v. DON ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

    109 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-13023 September 30, 1960 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. TERESA DUAT VDA. DE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-13283 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERAPIO CARUNUNGAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-13349 September 30, 1960 - MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR C. CALAMBA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 542

  • G.R. Nos. L-13389-90 September 30, 1960 - CAPITOL SUBD., INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO LOPEZ MONTELIBANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-13417 September 30, 1960 - JOSE B. VILLACORTA, ETC. v. HON. FERNANDO VILLAROSA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-13426 September 30, 1960 - INT’L. OIL FACTORY v. TOMASA MARTINEZ VDA. DE DORIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-13446 September 30, 1960 - MAXIMO SISON v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-13467 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN NECESITO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-13546 September 30, 1960 - GREGORIO VERZOSA v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 571

  • G.R. Nos. L-13567-68 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO B. DE LEON

    109 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13582 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO P. BAYLOSIS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-13686 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF JUSTO MALFORE v. DlR. OF FORESTRY

    109 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-13912 September 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO

    109 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-13941 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ETC. v. S. BLAQUERA, ETC.

    109 Phil 598

  • G.R. Nos. L-13992 & L-14035 September 30, 1960 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    109 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-14008 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRIZON REMOLLINO

    109 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-14348 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO YEBRA

    109 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14395 September 30, 1960 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. CATALINA V. YANDOC, ET AL.

    109 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. L-14497 September 30, 1960 - FELIX PAULINO, SR., ET AL. v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-14630 September 30, 1960 - LY HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-14733 September 30, 1960 - ERLINDA ESTOPA v. LORETO PIANSAY, JR.

    109 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-14737 September 30, 1960 - LEONCIA VELASCO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-14817 September 30, 1960 - ANDRES G. SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. NORTHERN LUZON TRANS. CO. INC.

    109 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-14822 September 30, 1960 - KHAW DY, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    109 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-14874 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO PEREZ v. ANGELA TUASON DE PEREZ

    109 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-14914 September 30, 1960 - JOHN TAN CHIN ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-14930 September 30, 1960 - MARLI PLYWOOD & VENEER CORP. v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-15021 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. L-15101 September 30, 1960 - IN RE: CHUA TIAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. L-15158 September 30, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. HON. NECIAS O. MENDOZA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. L-15179 September 30, 1960 - TEODORA AMAR v. JESUS ODIAMAN

    109 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-15208 September 30, 1960 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-15266 September 30, 1960 - TAN HOI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-15274 September 30, 1960 - DOMINGO ALMONTE UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-15305 September 30, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. ARCADIO PALLUGNA

    109 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-15327 September 30, 1960 - FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

    109 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-15380 September 30, 1960 - CHAN WAN v. TAN KIM, ET AL.

    109 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-15392 September 30, 1960 - REX TAXlCAB CO., INC. v. JOSE BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-15454 September 30, 1960 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EMILIANA FERRER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-15802 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGALONA, JR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 723

  • G.R. Nos. L-15928-33 September 30, 1960 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS CIA. DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-16088 September 30, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. FIDELA MORIN DE MARBELLA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-16226 September 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO REÑOSA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 740