January 2018 - page 3

FACTS: A notice of garnishment in connection with a trial judgment ordering the defendants therein to pay the plaintiff for damages was served on petitioner under whose office one defendant, an assistant city fiscal, was detailed. The notice directed petitioner not to disburse, transfer, release or convey to any other person except to the deputy sheriff concerned the salary checks, among others, belonging to said defendant. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the salary of a government officer or employee may be garnished. HELD: NO. The salary of a government officer or employee does not belong to him before it is physically…

Keep Reading

FACTS: A promissory note was co-executed on March 12, 1954 by Vicente Legarda, president of Concepcion Mining Company, and Jose Sarte, promising to pay to the order of plaintiff-appellee bank ninety days after date. Defendants mining company and Sarte were sentenced to pay plaintiff bank in a civil action brought against them for their failure to pay as promised. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the estate of co-maker Legarda should be included as party-defendant. HELD: NO. As the promissory note was executed jointly and severally by the same parties, the payee of the promissory note had the right to hold any…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On various dates, respondent bank issued 280 certificates of time deposits (CTDs) in favor of one Angel dela Cruz. Sometime later, dela Cruz informed respondent bank of the loss of the CTDs, which he actually delivered to petitioner in connection with his purchases of fuel products. After dela Cruz executed and delivered the required Affidavit of Loss, respondent bank replaced the lost CTDs which the former used to negotiate and obtain a loan. Respondent bank rejected petitioner’s demand and claim for payment of the value of the CTDs and later applied the time deposits to the payment of dela…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Parties entered into an agreement where plaintiff-appellee would render engineering design services to defendant-appellant for fees. The fees agreed upon were percentages of appellant’s fee. One of the projects they worked on was for the International Rice Research Institute where appellee stood to receive $28,000, or 20% of the $140,000 that was paid to appellant. ISSUE(S): Whether or not appellant may be compelled to pay in US dollars. HELD: NO. Payment in dollars is prohibited by RA 529, a law enacted prior to the forging of the parties’ agreement. The law requires that obligations incurred prior to its enactment…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Private respondent and two others executed a promissory note in favor of petitioner payable in Philippine currency without interest as well as stipulations in case of non-payment. Upon the failure of the debtors to comply with the terms of the note, petitioners filed a complaint for the recovery of the principal sum, plus interest and damages. Private respondent argued that the contract under consideration involved the payment of US dollars and was, therefore, illegal; and that under the in pari delicto rule, since both parties are guilty of violating the law, neither can recover. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioners…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner signed a promissory note with two others holding themselves jointly and severally liable to respondent bank. When petitioner and another obligor failed to respond to respondent bank’s demand for payment, an action for collection of money was filed against all three promisors. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner was a guarantor. HELD: NO. Petitioner signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor. This is patent even from the first sentence of the promissory note which states: Ninety one (91) days after date, for value received, I/We, JOINTLY and SEVERALLY promise to pay to the…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner-appellee presented for payment four promissory notes for different amounts totaling P21,000. The administrator-appellant manifested willingness to pay but later called attention to the fact that the notes contained no express promise to pay a specified amount. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the notes amounted to a promise to pay the amounts indicated thereon. HELD: YES. An acknowledgment may become a promise by the addition of words by which a promise of payment is naturally implied, such as, “payable,” “payable” on a given day, “payable on demand,” “paid… when called for.” To constitute a good promissory note, no precise words…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Defendant obtained a credit accommodation from plaintiff-bank to facilitate the payment of the printing of his periodical. As required by the bank, he executed a trust receipt in favor of said bank wherein he undertook to hold in trust for the plaintiff the periodicals and to sell the same with the promise to turn over to the plaintiff the proceeds of the sale to answer for the payment of all obligations arising from the drafts which were drawn by the printer against the bank and later sent to the defendant for acceptance. ISSUE(S): Whether or not defendant in signing…

Keep Reading

FACTS: A treasury warrant was issued in favor of Placido Urbanes in his capacity as disbursing officer of the Food Administration. He later indorsed it to petitioner, Benjamin Abubakar, a private citizen. The Auditor General refused to authorize the payment of said treasury warrant. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the subject treasury warrant is a negotiable instrument. HELD: NO. This treasury warrant is not within the scope of the negotiable instrument law. The document bearing on its face the words “payable from the appropriation for food administration,” is actually an order for payment out of “a particular fund,” and is not…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner made a money market placement with the Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (Philfinance) for which he was issued, among others, a Certificate of Sale of one Delta Motors Corporation (Delta) promissory note with Philfinace as “payee” and Delta as “maker,” and on the face of the said note was stamped “NON-NEGOTIABLE.” Despite repeated demand, petitioner failed to collect his investment and interest thereon. ISSUE(S): Whether or not a non-negotiable is capable of assignment or transfer. HELD: YES. A non-negotiable instrument may not be negotiated, but it may be assigned or transferred, absent an express prohibition against assignment or transfer…

Keep Reading