0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
1K просмотров1 страница
1. Loreta Serrano sued Long Life Pawnshop after her private secretary stole jewelry Serrano had pawned and redeemed it by presenting the pawn ticket.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the pawnshop was liable because, after being notified by Serrano and police that the jewelry was stolen, it had a duty to hold the jewelry and notify them if anyone tried to redeem it.
3. The Court also found that a pawn ticket is not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Law and does not absolve the pawnshop of its duty to hold stolen goods that were pawned.
1. Loreta Serrano sued Long Life Pawnshop after her private secretary stole jewelry Serrano had pawned and redeemed it by presenting the pawn ticket.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the pawnshop was liable because, after being notified by Serrano and police that the jewelry was stolen, it had a duty to hold the jewelry and notify them if anyone tried to redeem it.
3. The Court also found that a pawn ticket is not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Law and does not absolve the pawnshop of its duty to hold stolen goods that were pawned.
1. Loreta Serrano sued Long Life Pawnshop after her private secretary stole jewelry Serrano had pawned and redeemed it by presenting the pawn ticket.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the pawnshop was liable because, after being notified by Serrano and police that the jewelry was stolen, it had a duty to hold the jewelry and notify them if anyone tried to redeem it.
3. The Court also found that a pawn ticket is not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Law and does not absolve the pawnshop of its duty to hold stolen goods that were pawned.
Petitioner: Loreta Serrano Respondent: Court of Appeals and Long Life PawnShop, Inc. Ponencia: Feliciano, J.
DOCTRINE: A pawn ticket is not a negotiable instrument.
FACTS:
1. In March 1968, petitioner Loreta Serrano bought jewelry from Niceta Ribaya amounting to P48,500.
2. Serrano instructed Josefina Rocco, her private secretary to pawn the jewelry.
3. Rocco pledged the said jewelry for P22,000 to respondent Long Life Pawnshop, Inc. then escaped with the money. A pawn ticket was also issued for the said pieces of jewelry stating that it was redeemable "on presentation by the bearer."
4. Three months later, Serrano came to the knowledge that the pawnshop ticket for her jewelry was being sold.
5. Serrano went to the pawnshop and told the owner, Yu An Kiong not to permit anyone to redeem the jewelry as she was the lawful owner thereof. She also filed a complaint against Rocco with the police authorities and the latter also ordered the pawnshop to hold the jewelry and notify them in case someone redeems the same.
6. On 10 July 1968, Yu An Kiong permitted Tomasa de Leon, bearer of the pawnshop ticket, to redeem the jewelry.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not pawnshop is liable >Whether or not the pawn ticket is a negotiable instrument PROVISION:
ACT NO. 203 - THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES
Section 1. Form of negotiable instruments. - An instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following requirements:
(a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money;
(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;
(d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and
(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.
RULING + RATIO: 1. Yes Having been duly notified by Serrano and the authorities that the jewelry pawned to it was either stolen or involved in an embezzlement of the proceeds of the pledge, pawnbroker became duty bound to hold the things pledged and to give notice to petitioner and the police of any effort to redeem them. Although the pawn ticket stated that the pawn was redeemable by the bearer, it did not dissolve the duty of the pawnbroker to hold the thing pledged. The pawn ticket was not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Law nor a negotiable document of title under Articles 1507 et seq. of the Civil Code. DISPOSITION: The Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 September 1976 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of First Instance dated 22 May 1970 is hereby REINSTATED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.