LEODEGARIO BAYANI v. PEOPLE, GR NO.

155619, 2007-08-14

Facts:

On August 1992 accused issued Check No. 054924 dated August 26,
1992, in the amount of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and gave said
check to one Dolores Evangelista in exchange for cash although the said
accused knew fully well at the time of issuance of said check that he did
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment,
the same was dishonored and refused payment and that despite due
notice said accused failed to deposit the necessary amount to cover said
check, or to pay in full the amount of said check, to the damage and
prejudice of said Dolores.

Issue:

Whether accused is guilty of Violating the Negotiable Instruments Law

Ruling:

Yes. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, it is presumed that

every party to an instrument acquired the same for a consideration or for
value. In alleging that there was no consideration for the subject check, it
devolved upon petitioner to present convincing evidence to overthrow the
presumption and prove that the check was issued without consideration.
The thrust of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and
putting them in circulation.

ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 149995, 2007-09-28

Facts:

On September 1987 accused drew and issued to Alex B. Carlos to

apply on account or for the value the Check No. 326317PR in the amount
of P590,000.00. Accused well knowing that at the time of issue, he did not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in
full of the face amount of such check when presented for payment was
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank.

Issue:

Whether petitioner was guilty of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Ruling:

Yes, petitioner is guilty of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner

admitted that at the time he issued the subject check, he knew that he

1
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
payment of such check. Yet, he proceeded to issue the same claiming
that the same would only... be shown to prospective suppliers, a defense
which is not valid.

CARMENCITA G. CARIÑO v. MERLIN DE CASTRO, GR No. 176084, 2008-04-

30

Facts:

Petitioner Carmencita G. Cariño filed a complaint-affidavit for

violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against respondent Merlin de Castro
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. After conducting
preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor Manuel B. Sta. Cruz,
Jr., issued a Resolution finding prima facie evidence and recommending
respondent's indictment. Accordingly, respondent was charged with five
(5) counts of violation of BP 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 13.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling:

We held that only the OSG can bring or defend actions on behalf of
the Republic or represent the People or state in criminal proceedings
pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

SIAIN ENTERPRISES v. CUPERTINO REALTY CORP., GR No. 170782, 2009-

06-22

Facts:

Petitioner Siain Enterprises, Inc. obtained a loan of P37,000,000.00

from respondent Cupertino Realty Corporation (Cupertino) covered by a
promissory note signed by both petitioner's and Cupertino's respective
presidents, Cua Le Leng and Wilfredo Lua. To secure the loan, petitioner
executed a real estate mortgage over two (2) parcels of land and other
immovables. On August 16, 1995, Cua Le Leng signed a second
promissory note in favor of Cupertino for P160,000,000.00. Petitioner,
through counsel, wrote Cupertino and demanded the release of the
P160,000,000.00 but despite repeated verbal demands, Cupertino failed to
pay.

2
Issue:

Whether the lower courts erroneously applied the doctrine of "piercing

the veil of corporate fiction".

Ruling:

Thus, while it appears that the issuance of the checks and the debit
memos as well as the pledges of the condominium units, the jewelries,
and the trucks had occurred prior to March 2, 1995, the date when
Cupertino was incorporated, the same does not affect the validity of the
subject transactions because applying again the principle of piercing the
corporate veil, the transactions entered into by Cupertino Realty
Corporation, it being merely the alter ego of Wilfredo Lua, are deemed to
be the latter's personal transactions and vice-versa.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. HELEN T. KALALO, GR No. 185522, 2012-

06-13

Facts:

Respondent Kalalo had been a dealer of beer products since 1998.

She had a credit overdraft arrangement with petitioner SMC. On 19
October 2000, instead of updating the account of respondent Kalalo,
petitioner SMC sent her a demand letter for the value of the seven
dishonored checks.

On 5 December 2000, respondent's counsel wrote a letter (the

"Offer of Compromise") wherein Kalalo "acknowledge[d] the receipt of the
statement of account demanding the payment of the sum of P816,689.00"
and "submitt[ed] a proposal by way of 'Compromise Agreement' to settle
the said obligation." to which SMC did not accept the proposal.

Issue:

Whether Kalalo should be liable to SMC.

Ruling:

Respondent correctly argues that if the check transactions were

covered by other statements of account, petitioner should have presented
evidence of those transactions during the proceedings before the lower
court.

In any event, we cannot allow SMC to recover the amount of

P921,215 from respondent, as it failed to prove the existence of the

3
purported indebtedness. The records are bereft of any evidence, other
than the dishonored checks, establishing the existence of that obligation.

TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, GR No. 146511, 2007-09-05

Facts:

Defendants obtained a loan of P50,000 and P30,000, evidenced by

promissory notes. Despite repeated demands for payment, defendants
failed and refused to settle their obligation, resulting in a total
indebtedness of P539,638.96.

Issues:

Whether the defendants are guilty of violation of the Negotiable

Instruments Law.

Ruling:

Notably, Section 29 of the NIL defines an accommodation party as a

person "who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or
indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending
his name to some other person." As gleaned from the text, an
accommodation party is one who meets all the three requisites, viz: (1) he
must be a party to the instrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor, or
indorser; (2) he must not receive value therefor; and (3) he must sign for
the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person.

In the instant case, petitioner agreed to be "jointly and severally"

liable under the two promissory notes that he co-signed with Antonio Ang
Eng Liong as the principal debtor. This being so, it is completely
immaterial if the bank would opt to proceed only against petitioner or
Antonio Ang Eng Liong or both of them since the law confers upon the
creditor the prerogative to choose whether to enforce the entire
obligation against any one, some or all of the debtors. Nonetheless,
petitioner, as an accommodation party, may seek reimbursement from
Antonio Ang Eng Liong, being the party accommodated.

HENRY DELA RAMA CO v. ADMIRAL UNITED SAVINGS BANK, GR No.

154740, 2008-04-16

Facts:

4
 Admiral United Savings Bank (ADMIRAL) extended a loan of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to petitioner Henry Dela Rama Co
(Co), with Leocadio O. Isip (Isip) as co-maker. The loan was evidenced by
Promissory Note. However, despite repeated demands Co and Isip failed
to pay the loan when it became due and demandable.

Issues:

Whether CA committed reversible error in holding Co liable for the

payment of the loan.

Ruling:

The document, bearing Co's signature, speaks for itself. To repeat,

Co has not questioned the genuineness and due execution of the note. By
signing the promissory note, Co acknowledged receipt of the loan
amounting to P500,000.00, and undertook to pay the same, plus interest,
to ADMIRAL on or before February 28, 1984. Thus, he cannot validly set
up the defense that he did not receive the value of the note or any
consideration therefor.

CLAUDE P. BAUTISTA v. AUTO PLUS TRADERS, GR No. 166405, 2008-08-

06

Facts:

Petitioner Claude P. Bautista, in his capacity as President and

Presiding Officer of Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation,
purchased various spare parts from private respondent Auto Plus Traders,
Inc. and issued two postdated checks to cover his purchases. The checks
were subsequently dishonored. Private respondent then executed an
affidavit-complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against
petitioner.

Issues:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC's ruling

that petitioner, as an officer of the corporation, is personally and civilly
liable to the private respondent for the value of the two checks.

Ruling:

We find the appellate court in error for affirming the decision of the
RTC holding petitioner liable for the value of the checks considering that
petitioner was acquitted of the crime charged and that the debts are

5
clearly corporate debts for which only Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport
Corporation should be held liable.

Likewise, contrary to private respondent's contentions, petitioner

cannot be considered liable as an accommodation party for Check No.
58832 since there is no showing of when petitioner issued the check and
in what capacity.