Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Table of Contents
Abubakar vs. Auditor General, GR L-1405, 31 July 1948 ......... 1 Ang Tiong vs. T
ing, GR L-26767, 22 February 1968 ......... 1 Arrieta vs. National Rice & Corn Co
rporation (NARIC), GR L-15645, 31 January 1964 ......... 1 Associated Bank vs. CA
, GR 89802, 7 May 1992 ......... 2 Associated Bank vs. CA, GR 107382, 31 January
1996 ......... 2 Bataan Cigar and Cigarette Factory vs. CA, GR 93048, 3 March 199
4 ......... 3 Caltex (Philippines) Inc. vs. CA, GR 97753, 10 August 1992 .........
3 Caram Resources vs. Contreras, AM MTJ0830849, 26 October 1994 ......... 4 City
Trust Banking vs. CA, GR 92591, 30 April 1991 ......... 5 Clark vs. Sellner, GR
16477, 22 November 1921 ......... 5 Co vs. PNB, GR L-51767, 29 June 1982 .........
6 Cruz vs. CA, GR 108738, 17 June 1994 ......... 6 Crystal vs. CA, GR L-35767, 1
8 June 1976 ......... 6 Dela Victoria vs. Burgos, GR 111190, 27 June 1995 ........
.7 Firestone Tire and Rubber vs. Ines Chaves & Co., GR L-17106, 19 October 1966 .
........ 7 Gempesaw vs. CA, GR 92244, 9 February 1993 ......... 8 Hongkong & Shan
ghai Bank vs. Peoples Bank and Trust, GR L-28226, 30 September 1970 ......... 8 Ib
asco vs. CA, GR 117488, 5 September 1996 ......... 9 Jimenez vs. Bucoy, GR L-1022
1, 28 February 1958 ......... 9 Kalalo vs. Luz, GR L-27782, 31 July 1970 .........
10 Lao vs. CA, GR 119178, 20 June 1997 ......... 10 Lazaro vs. CA, GR 105461, 11
November 1993 ......... 11 Lim vs. CA, GR 107898, 19 December 1995 ......... 11 L
im vs. People, GR 130038, 18 September 2000 ......... 12 Lim vs. Rodrigo, GR 7697
4, 18 November 1988 ......... 12 Llamado vs. CA, GR 99032, 26 March 1997 .........
13 Lozano vs. Martinez, GR L-63419, 18 December 1986 ......... 13 Magno vs. CA,
GR 96132, 26 June 1992 ......... 14 Manila Lighter Transportation vs. CA, GR L-50
373, 15 February 1990 ......... 14 Moran vs. CA, GR 105836, 7 March 1994 .........
15 MWSS vs. CA, GR L-62943, 14 July 1986 ......... 15 Navarro vs. CA, GR 112389,
1 August 1994 ......... 16 People vs. Grospe, GR L-74053-54, 20 January 1988 ....
..... 16 People vs. Maniego, GR L-30910, 27 February 1987 ......... 17 People vs.
Reyes, GR 101127-31, 18 November 1993 ......... 17 People vs. Tuanda, AC 3360, 3
0 January 1990 ......... 18 Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Aruego, GR L-25836-37
, 31 January 1981 ......... 18 Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank vs. CA, GR 1
21413, 29 January 2001 ......... 19 Philippine Education Co. vs. Soriano, GR L-22
405, 30 June 1971 ......... 20 Pineda vs. dela Rama, GR L-31831, 28 April 1983 ...
...... 20 PNB vs. CA, GR L-26001, 29 October 1968 ......... 21 PNB vs. National C
ity Bank, GR 43596, 31 October 1936 ......... 21 PNB vs. Quimpo, GR L-53194, 14 M
arch 1988 ......... 22 Ponce vs. CA, GR L-49444, 31 May 1979 ......... 23 Prudenci
o vs. CA, GR L-34539, 14 July 1986 ......... 23 Que vs. People, GR 75217-18, 21 S
eptember 1987 ......... 24 Republic Bank vs. CA, GR 42725, 22 April 1991 .........
24 Republic Bank vs. Ebrada, GR L-40796, 31 July 1975......... 25 Republic Plant
ers Bank vs. CA, GR 93073, 21 December 1992 ......... 25 San Carlos Milling vs. B
PI, GR 37467, 11 December 1933 ......... 26
Sesbreno vs. CA, GR 89252, 24 May 1993 ......... 26 State Investment House vs. CA
, GR 101163, 11 January 1993 ......... 27 State Investment House vs. IAC, GR 7276
4, 13 July 1989 ......... 28 Stelco Marketing vs. CA, GR 96160, 17 June 1992 .....
.... 28 Tan vs. CA, GR 108555, 20 December 1994 ......... 29 Tibajia vs. CA, GR 1
00290, 4 June 1993 ......... 29 Travel On vs. CA, GR 56169, 26 June 1992 .........
30 Uy vs. CA, GR 119000, 28 June 1997 ......... 30 Vaca vs. CA, GR 43596, 31 Oct
ober 1936 ......... 30 Vda. de Eduque vs. Ocampo, GR L-222, 26 April 1950 ........
. 31
This collection contains sixty (60) cases summarized in this format by Michael V
ernon M. Guerrero (as a sophomore law student) during the Second Semester, schoo
l year 2003-2004 in the Negotiable Instruments Law class under Atty. Minda Gapuz
at the Arellano University School of Law (AUSL). Compiled as PDF, July 2011. Be
rne Guerrero entered AUSL in June 2002 and eventually graduated from AUSL in 200
6. He passed the Philippine bar examinations immediately after (April 2007).
www.berneguerrero.com
State Investment House vs. IAC GR 72764, 13 July 1989 Third Division, Fernan (J)
Facts: New Sikatuna Wood Industries Inc. (NSWI) requested for a loan from Harri
s Chua, who issued 3 crossed checks. Subsequently, NSWI entered in an agreement
with the State Investment House Inc. (SIHI), under a deed of sale, where the for
mer assigned and discounted 11 postdated checks including the 3 issued by Chua.
When the 3 checks were allegedly deposited by SIHI, the checks were dishonored b
y reason of insufficient funds, stop payment and account closed. SIHI made demands up
n Chua to make good said checks, Chua failed to do so. Issue: Whether SIHI is a
holder in due course so as to recover the amounts in the checks from Chua, the d
rawer. Held: The Negotiable Instruments Law does not mention crossed checks but th
e Court has recognized the practice that crossing the check (by two parallel lin
es in the upper left portion of the check) means that the check may only be depo
sited in the bank and that the check may be negotiated only once (to one who has
an account with a bank). The act of crossing a check serves as a warning to the
holder that the check has been issued for a definite purpose so that he must in
quire if he has received the check pursuant to that purpose, otherwise he is not
a holder in due course. Herein, SIHI rediscounted the check knowing that it was
a crossed check. His failure to inquire from the holder (NSWI) the purpose for
which the checks were crossed prevents him from being considered in good faith,
and thus, as a holder in due course. SIHI, therefor is subject to personal defen
ses, such as the lack of consideration between the NSWI and Chua, i.e. resulting
from the nonconsummation of the loan. [54] Stelco Marketing vs. CA GR 96160, 17
June 1992 Second Division, Narvasa (J) Facts: Stelco Marketing Corporation sold
steel bars and GI wires to RYL Construction Inc. worth P126,859.61. RYL gave St
elcos sister corporation, Armstrong Industries, a MetroBank check from Steelweld Co
rporation (The check was issued apparently by Steelwelds President Peter Rafael L
imson to Romeo Lim, President of RYL and Limson friend, by way of accommodation,
as a guaranty and not in payment of an obligation). When Armstrong deposited the
check at its bank, it was dishonored because it was drawn against insufficient
funds. When so deposited, the check bore 2 indorsements, i.e. RYL and Armstrong.
A criminal case was instituted against Limson, etc. for violation of BP 22, Sub
sequently, Stelco filed a civil case against RYL and Steelweld to recover the va
lue of the steel products. Issue: Whether Stelco was a holder in due course of t
he check issued by Steelweld. Held: The records do not show any intervention or
participation by Stelco in any manner or form whatsoever in the transaction invo
lving the check, or any communication of any sort between Steelweld and Stelco,
or between either of them and Armstrong Industries, at any time before the disho
nor of the check. The record does show that after the check was deposited and di
shonored, Stelco came into possession of it in some way. Stelco cannot thus be d
eemed a holder of the check for value as it does not meet two essential requisit
es prescribed by the statute, i.e. that it did not become the holder of it before
it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, and t
hat it did not take the check in good faith and for value. [55]
Negotiable Instruments Law, 2004 ( 28 )