Claudine - page 10

FACTS: A check drawn against petitioner was presented for payment to respondent Bank. Satisfied with the authenticity of the signature appearing thereon, the check was encashed. The following day, petitioner’s accountant who had custody of the company checks discovered that a check was missing and reported the petitioner’s project manager who is also the sole signatory to its checking account. Petitioner demanded that it be reimbursed for the proceeds of the check. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent bank is liable to reimburse for the payment of the forged check. HELD: YES. Banks are engaged in a business impressed with public…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Private respondent and one other, both officers of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc., were authorized to apply for credit facilities with petitioner Bank, which issued nine promissory notes uniformly worded except for the dates and amounts in the following manner: ____, after date, for value received, I/we, jointly and severally promise to pay to the ORDER of the REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, at its office in Manila, Philippines, the sum of _____ PESOS (…) Philippine Currency… On the right bottom margin of the promissory notes appeared the signatures of both officers above their names with the phrase “and (in) his personal…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent Ong, as presidents of their respective corporations, entered into a contract where the latter shall render construction and land development services and shall be paid on the basis of the completed houses and developed lands delivered to and accepted by the former and the project financer. Years later, Ong learned that seven checks drawn had been executed and signed payable to respondent corporation for completed and deliver work under the contract. These checks were supposed to be delivered to him by petitioner but, instead, the latter forged his signature at the back of the checks…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent Sima Wei executed and delivered to petitioner Bank a promissory note for the payment of a loan. He made partial payments on the note and months later issued two crossed checks for the full payment of his account. The checks were not delivered to petitioner Bank or to any of its representatives and later came to the possession of respondent Lee Kian Huat, who the same to the account of respondent corporation without petitioner’s indorsement. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner had acquired any right or interest on the checks. HELD: NO. Courts have long recognized the business custom…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent guaranteed the payment of 70% of petitioner corporation’s loans on the condition that upon payment of said amount it shall be proportionally subrogated to the rights of the original creditor. The loans were secured by three promissory notes, each of which petitioner Roxas signed twice – as president of petitioner corporation and in his personal capacity. For their failure to pay their loan obligations, respondent filed against both petitioners a complaint for sum of money. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner Roxas should be jointly and severally liable. HELD: Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names…

Keep Reading

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