SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-5640 March 25, 1911
BENIGNO GOITIA vs. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, ET AL. -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5640 March 25, 1911

BENIGNO GOITIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, AUSTRALIA, AND CHINA, Defendant-Appellee.

Haussermann, Ortigas, Cohn and Fisher for appellant.
A.D. Gibbs, for appellee.

CARSON, J. :chanrobles virtual law library

We think that the reasoning of the court below, based upon the agreed facts in this case, sufficiently and satisfactorily sustains the decision from which this appeal was taken.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It may be well, however, to point out that we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant based on his construction of the language used by this court in our decision in a case involving another phase of the questions and facts presented by the case at bar (Landa vs. Sanz, 8 Phil. Rep., 13). It appears to rest on a misconception of the true meaning of the language used in the former decision, a misconception which may well have had its origin in the imperfect and doubtedness misleading translation of the original Spanish text found in the English version published in the official reports.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The English text of the former decision makes the court, in discussing the legal status which resulted from the transactions therein set out, expressly declare that it was the duty of the bank to have, hold and reserve funds of the drawer to the amount of the lost check, for the payment of the new check, the execution of which was authorized and directed in that decision; whereas the original Spanish version nowhere imposed such a duty upon the bank. The only obligation which the original decision expressly recognized as resting on the bank was the "stoppage" of payment on the lost check in compliance with the judicial order which the bank obligated itself to respect and obey. It is true, that in directing and authorizing the issuing of a new check, we said that we did so in order that the payee of the lost check might be able therewith to draw out the funds which ought to be reserved in the bank for its payment. But beyond its obligation to "stop" payment of the lost check, the duty to reserve these funds in the bank clearly rested, not on the bank, but upon the drawer of the original check, to whose credit these funds originally stood in his checking account with the bank.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The judgment of the court below should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. It is so ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.