G.R. No. 112985 April 21, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. MARTIN L.

ROMERO and ERNESTO C. RODRIGUEZ, accused-appellants. Facts: San Andres Industrial Development Corporation SAIDECOR engaged in soliciting funds and investments from the public. The corporation guaranteed an 800% return on investment within fifteen (15) or twenty one (21) days. Investors were given coupons containing the capital and the return on the capital collectible on the date agreed upon. Complainant Ernesto A. Ruiz went to SAIDECOR office in Butuan City to make an investment, After handing over the amount of P150,000.00 to Ernesto Rodriguez, complainant received a postdated Butuan City Rural Bank check instead of the usual redeemable coupon. The check indicated P1,000,200.00 as the amount in words, but the amount in figures was for P1,200,000.00, as the return on the investment. Compliant did not notice the discrepancy. When the check was presented to the bank for payment, it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by the check return slip issued by the bank. Both accused could not be located and demand for payment was made only during the preliminary investigation of this case. Accused responded that they had no money. On November 13, 1992, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts, signed only by their respective counsels. Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision. RTC convicted the accused. The accused appealed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was correct in contending that if the trial court followed the admission and stipulation of facts submitted by them, it would prove that there was sufficient funds. RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the appealed judgment. HELD: Accused relies on the fact that there was a discrepancy between the amount in words and the amount in figures in the check that was dishonored. The amount in words was P1,000,200.00, while the amount in figures was P1,200,000.00. It is admitted that the corporation had in the bank P1,144,760.00 on September 28, 1989, and P1,124,307.14 on April 2, 1990. The check was presented for payment on October 5, 1989. The rule in the Negotiable Instruments Law is that when there is ambiguity in the amount in words and the amount in figures, it would be the amount in words that would prevail. However, this rule of interpretation finds no application in the case. The agreement was perfectly clear that at the end of twenty one (21) days, the investment of P150,000.00 would become P1,200,000.00. Even if the trial court admitted the stipulation of facts, it would not be favorable to accused.

Whether or not respondent bank should be held liable for damages suffered by petitioner, due to its allegedly belated notice of non-payment of the subject withdrawal slips. G.R. No. 113236 March 5, 2001

FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, respondents. FACTS: Fojas-Arca Enterprises Company maintained a special account with respondent Luzon Development Bank which authorized and allowed the former to withdraw funds from its account through the medium of special withdrawal slips. Fojas-Arca purchased on credit firestone products from petitioner with a total amount of P4,896,000.00. In payment of these purchases, FojasArca delivered to petitioner six special withdrawal slips drawn upon the respondent bank. In turn, these were deposited by the petitioner with its current account with the Citibank. All of them were honored and paid by the respondent bank. However, in a subsequent transaction involving the payment of withdrawal slips by Fojas-Arca for purchases on credit from petitioner, two withdrawal slips for the total sum of P2,078,092.80 were dishonored and not paid by respondent bank for the reason "NO ARRANGEMENT". Petitioner's complaint for a sum of money and damages with the Regional Trial Court was dismissed. CA affirmed the decision. ISSUE:

RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. HELD: The essence of negotiability which characterizes a negotiable paper as a credit instrument lies in its freedom to circulate freely as a substitute for money. The withdrawal slips in question lacked this character. As the withdrawal slips in question were non-negotiable, the rules governing the giving of immediate notice of dishonor of negotiable instruments do not apply. The respondent bank was under no obligation to give immediate notice that it would not make payment on the subject withdrawal slips. Citibank should have known that withdrawal slips were not negotiable instruments. It could not expect these slips to be treated as checks by other entities. Payment or notice of dishonor from respondent bank could not be expected immediately, in contrast to the situation involving checks. Citibank was not bound to accept the withdrawal slips as a valid mode of deposit. But having erroneously accepted them as such, Citibank and petitioner as account-holder must bear the risks attendant to the acceptance of these instruments. Petitioner and Citibank could not now shift the risk and hold private respondent liable for their admitted mistake.

G.R. No. 116320 November 29, 1999 ADALIA FRANCISCO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HERBY COMMERCIAL & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND JAIME C. ONG,respondents.

Under the contract, HCCC was to be paid on the basis of the completed houses and developed lands delivered to and accepted by AFRDC and the GSIS. Sometime in 1979, Ong discovered that Francisco and Diaz, the VicePresident of GSIS, had executed and signed seven checks of various dates and amounts payable to HCCC for completed and delivered work under the contract. Ong, however, claims that these checks were never delivered to HCCC. Upon inquiry with Diaz, Ong learned that the GSIS gave Francisco custody of the checks since she promised that she would deliver the same to HCCC. Instead, Francisco forged the signature of Ong, without his knowledge or consent, at the dorsal portion of the said checks to make it appear that HCCC had indorsed the checks, Francisco then indorsed the checks for a second time by signing her name at the back of the checks and deposited the checks in her savings account. A case was brought by private respondents against petitioner to recover the value of said checks. Petitioner however claims that she was authorized to sign Ong's name on the checks by virtue of the Certification executed by Ong in her favor giving her the authority to collect all the receivables of HCCC from the GSIS, including the questioned checks.The RTC ruled in favor of the private respondent. The CA affirmed the trial court's ruling, ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner cannot be held liable on the questioned checks by virtue of the Certification executed by Ong giving her the authority to collect such checks from the GSIS. RULING:

FACTS:, Adalia Francisco Realty & Development Corporation (AFRDC), of which petitioner Francisco is the president, entered into a Land Development and Construction Contract with private respondent Herby Commercial & Construction Corporation (HCCC), represented by its President and General Manager private respondent Ong where HCCC agreed to undertake the construction of 35 housing units and the development of 35 hectares of land.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the respondent court's decision. HELD: Petitioner is liable. The Negotiable Instruments Law provides that where any person is under obligation to indorse in a representative capacity, he may indorse in such terms as to negative personal liability. An agent, when so signing, should indicate that he is merely signing in behalf of the principal and must disclose the name of his principal; otherwise he shall be held personally liable. Even assuming that Francisco was authorized by HCCC to sign Ong's name, still, Francisco did not indorse the instrument in accordance with law. Instead of signing Ong's name, Francisco should have signed her own name and expressly indicated that she was signing as an agent of HCCC. Thus, the Certification cannot be used by Francisco to validate her act of forgery.