Jurisprudence: G.R. No. 101163 January 11, 1993

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 101163 January 11, 1993

STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and NORA B. MOULIC, respondents.

Escober, Alon & Associates for petitioner.

Martin D. Pantaleon for private respondents.



BELLOSILLO, J.:

The liability to a holder in due course of the drawer of checks issued to another merely as security, and the right of a real estate mortgagee after extrajudicial foreclosure to recover the balance of the obligation, are the issues in this Petition for Review of the Decision of respondent Court of Appeals.

Private respondent Nora B. Moulic issued to Corazon Victoriano, as security for pieces of jewelry to be sold on commission, two (2) post-dated Equitable Banking Corporation checks in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each, one dated 30 August 1979 and the other, 30 September 1979. Thereafter, the payee negotiated the checks to petitioner State Investment House. Inc. (STATE).

MOULIC failed to sell the pieces of jewelry, so she returned them to the payee before maturity of the checks. The checks, however, could no longer be retrieved as they had already been negotiated. Consequently, before their maturity dates, MOULIC withdrew her funds from the drawee bank.

Upon presentment for payment, the checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. On 20 December 1979, STATE allegedly notified MOULIC of the dishonor of the checks and requested that it be paid in cash instead, although MOULIC avers that no such notice was given her.

On 6 October 1983, STATE sued to recover the value of the checks plus attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

In her Answer, MOULIC contends that she incurred no obligation on the checks because the jewelry was never sold and the checks were negotiated without her knowledge and consent. She also instituted a Third-Party Complaint against Corazon Victoriano, who later assumed full responsibility for the checks.

On 26 May 1988, the trial court dismissed the Complaint as well as the Third-Party Complaint, and ordered STATE to pay MOULIC P3,000.00 for attorney's fees.

STATE elevated the order of dismissal to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court on the ground that the Notice of Dishonor to MOULIC was made beyond the period prescribed by the Negotiable Instruments Law and that even if STATE did serve such notice on MOULIC within the reglementary period it would be of no consequence as the checks should never have been presented for payment. The sale of the jewelry was never effected; the checks, therefore, ceased to serve their purpose as security for the jewelry.

We are not persuaded.

The negotiability of the checks is not in dispute. Indubitably, they were negotiable. After all, at the pre-trial, the parties agreed to limit the issue to whether or not STATE was a holder of the checks in due course. 1

In this regard, Sec. 52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides —

Sec. 52. What constitutes a holder in due course. — A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upon its face; (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it was previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (c) That he took it in good faith and for value; (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.

Culled from the foregoing, a prima facie presumption exists that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course. 2 Consequently, the burden of proving that STATE is not a holder in due course lies in the person who disputes the presumption. In this regard, MOULIC failed.

The evidence clearly shows that: (a) on their faces the post-dated checks were complete and regular: (b) petitioner bought these checks from the payee, Corazon Victoriano, before their due dates; 3 (c) petitioner took these checks in good faith and for value, albeit at a discounted price; and, (d) petitioner was never informed nor made aware that these checks were merely issued to payee as security and not for value.

Consequently, STATE is indeed a holder in due course. As such, it holds the instruments free from any defect of title of prior parties, and from defenses available to prior parties among themselves; STATE may, therefore, enforce full payment of the checks. 4

MOULIC cannot set up against STATE the defense that there was failure or absence of consideration. MOULIC can only invoke this defense against STATE if it was privy to the purpose for which they were issued and therefore is not a holder in due course.

That the post-dated checks were merely issued as security is not a ground for the discharge of the instrument as against a holder in due course. For the only grounds are those outlined in Sec. 119 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:

Sec. 119. Instrument; how discharged. — A negotiable instrument is discharged: (a) By payment in due course by or on behalf of the principal debtor; (b) By payment in due course by the party accommodated, where the instrument is made or accepted for his accommodation; (c) By the intentional cancellation thereof by the holder; (d) By any other act which will discharge a simple contract for the payment of money; (e) When the principal debtor becomes the holder of the instrument at or after maturity in his own right.

Obviously, MOULIC may only invoke paragraphs (c) and (d) as possible grounds for the discharge of the instrument. But, the intentional cancellation contemplated under paragraph (c) is that cancellation effected by destroying the instrument either by tearing it up, 5 burning it, 6 or writing the word "cancelled" on the instrument. The act of destroying the instrument must also be made by the holder of the instrument intentionally. Since MOULIC failed to get back possession of the post-dated checks, the intentional cancellation of the said checks is altogether impossible.

On the other hand, the acts which will discharge a simple contract for the payment of money under paragraph (d) are determined by other existing legislations since Sec. 119 does not specify what these acts are, e.g., Art. 1231 of the Civil Code 7 which enumerates the modes of extinguishing obligations. Again, none of the modes outlined therein is applicable in the instant case as Sec. 119 contemplates of a situation where the holder of the instrument is the creditor while its drawer is the debtor. In the present action, the payee, Corazon Victoriano, was no longer MOULIC's creditor at the time the jewelry was returned.

Correspondingly, MOULIC may not unilaterally discharge herself from her liability by the mere expediency of withdrawing her funds from the drawee bank. She is thus liable as she has no legal basis to excuse herself from liability on her checks to a holder in due course.

Moreover, the fact that STATE failed to give Notice of Dishonor to MOULIC is of no moment. The need for such notice is not absolute; there are exceptions under Sec. 114 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:

Sec. 114. When notice need not be given to drawer. — Notice of dishonor is not required to be given to the drawer in the following cases: (a) Where the drawer and the drawee are the same person; (b) When the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract; (c) When the drawer is the person to whom the instrument is presented for payment: (d) Where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will honor the instrument; (e) Where the drawer had countermanded payment.

Indeed, MOULIC'S actuations leave much to be desired. She did not retrieve the checks when she returned the jewelry. She simply withdrew her funds from her drawee bank and transferred them to another to protect herself. After withdrawing her funds, she could not have expected her checks to be honored. In other words, she was responsible for the dishonor of her checks, hence, there was no need to serve her Notice of Dishonor, which is simply bringing to the knowledge of the drawer or indorser of the instrument, either verbally or by writing, the fact that a specified instrument, upon proper proceedings taken, has not been accepted or has not been paid, and that the party notified is expected to pay it. 8

In addition, the Negotiable Instruments Law was enacted for the purpose of facilitating, not hindering or hampering transactions in commercial paper. Thus, the said statute should not be tampered with haphazardly or lightly. Nor should it be brushed aside in order to meet the necessities in a single case. 9

The drawing and negotiation of a check have certain effects aside from the transfer of title or the incurring of liability in regard to the instrument by the transferor. The holder who takes the negotiated paper makes a contract with the parties on the face of the instrument. There is an implied representation that funds or credit are available for the payment of the instrument in the bank upon which it is drawn. 10 Consequently, the withdrawal of the money from the drawee bank to avoid liability on the checks cannot prejudice the rights of holders in due course. In the instant case, such withdrawal renders the drawer, Nora B. Moulic, liable to STATE, a holder in due course of the checks.

Under the facts of this case, STATE could not expect payment as MOULIC left no funds with the drawee bank to meet her obligation on the checks, 11 so that Notice of Dishonor would be futile.

The Court of Appeals also held that allowing recovery on the checks would constitute unjust enrichment on the part of STATE Investment House, Inc. This is error.

The record shows that Mr. Romelito Caoili, an Account Assistant, testified that the obligation of Corazon Victoriano and her husband at the time their property mortgaged to STATE was extrajudicially foreclosed amounted to P1.9 million; the bid price at public auction was only P1 million. 12 Thus, the value of the property foreclosed was not even enough to pay the debt in full.

Where the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to cover the debt in an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor. 13 The step thus taken by the mortgagee-bank in resorting to an extra-judicial foreclosure was merely to find a proceeding for the sale of the property and its action cannot be taken to mean a waiver of its right to demand payment for the whole debt. 14 For, while Act 3135, as amended, does not discuss the mortgagee's right to recover such deficiency, it does not contain any provision either, expressly or impliedly, prohibiting recovery. In this jurisdiction, when the legislature intends to foreclose the right of a creditor to sue for any deficiency resulting from foreclosure of a security given to guarantee an obligation, it so expressly provides. For instance, with respect to pledges, Art. 2115 of the Civil Code 15 does not allow the creditor to recover the deficiency from the sale of the thing pledged. Likewise, in the case of a chattel mortgage, or a thing sold on installment basis, in the event of foreclosure, the vendor "shall have no further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the price. Any agreement to the contrary will be void". 16

It is clear then that in the absence of a similar provision in Act No. 3135, as amended, it cannot be concluded that the creditor loses his right recognized by the Rules of Court to take action for the recovery of any unpaid balance on the principal obligation simply because he has chosen to extrajudicially foreclose the real estate mortgage pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney given him by the mortgagor in the contract of mortgage. 17

The filing of the Complaint and the Third-Party Complaint to enforce the checks against MOULIC and the VICTORIANO spouses, respectively, is just another means of recovering the unpaid balance of the debt of the VICTORIANOs.

In fine, MOULIC, as drawer, is liable for the value of the checks she issued to the holder in due course, STATE, without prejudice to any action for recompense she may pursue against the VICTORIANOs as Third-Party Defendants who had already been declared as in default.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision appealed from is REVERSED and a new one entered declaring private respondent NORA B. MOULIC liable to petitioner STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., for the value of EBC Checks Nos. 30089658 and 30089660 in the total amount of P100,000.00, P3,000.00 as attorney's fees, and the costs of suit, without prejudice to any action for recompense she may pursue against the VICTORIANOs as Third-Party Defendants.

Costs against private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.

Jurisprudence: G.R. No. 138074. August 15, 2003

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 138074. August 15, 2003

CELY YANG, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, PREM CHANDIRAMANI and FERNANDO DAVID, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

QUISUMBING, J.:

For review on certiorari is the decision1 of the Court of Appeals, dated March 25, 1999, in CA-G.R. CV No. 52398, which affirmed with modification the joint decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 117, dated July 4, 1995, in Civil Cases Nos. 54792 and 5492.3The trial court dismissed the complaint against herein respondents Far East Bank & Trust Company (FEBTC), Equitable Banking Corporation (Equitable), and Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) and ruled in favor of respondent Fernando David as to the proceeds of the two cashiers checks, including the earnings thereof pendente lite. Petitioner Cely Yang was ordered to pay David moral damages of P100,000.00 and attorneys fees also in the amount of P100,000.00.

The facts of this case are not disputed, to wit:

On or before December 22, 1987, petitioner Cely Yang and private respondent Prem Chandiramani entered into an agreement whereby the latter was to give Yang a PCIB managers check in the amount of P4.2 million in exchange for two (2) of Yangs managers checks, each in the amount of P2.087 million, both payable to the order of private respondent Fernando David. Yang and Chandiramani agreed that the difference of P26,000.00 in the exchange would be their profit to be divided equally between them.

Yang and Chandiramani also further agreed that the former would secure from FEBTC a dollar draft in the amount of US$200,000.00, payable to PCIB FCDU Account No. 4195-01165-2, which Chandiramani would exchange for another dollar draft in the same amount to be issued by Hang Seng Bank Ltd. of Hong Kong.

Accordingly, on December 22, 1987, Yang procured the following:

a) Equitable Cashiers Check No. CCPS 14-009467 in the sum of P2,087,000.00, dated December 22, 1987, payable to the order of Fernando David;

b) FEBTC Cashiers Check No. 287078, in the amount of P2,087,000.00, dated December 22, 1987, likewise payable to the order of Fernando David; and

c) FEBTC Dollar Draft No. 4771, drawn on Chemical Bank, New York, in the amount of US$200,000.00, dated December 22, 1987, payable to PCIB FCDU Account No. 4195-01165-2.

At about one oclock in the afternoon of the same day, Yang gave the aforementioned cashiers checks and dollar drafts to her business associate, Albert Liong, to be delivered to Chandiramani by Liongs messenger, Danilo Ranigo. Ranigo was to meet Chandiramani at Philippine Trust Bank, Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Metro Manila where he would turn over Yangs cashiers checks and dollar draft to Chandiramani who, in turn, would deliver to Ranigo a PCIB managers check in the sum of P4.2 million and a Hang Seng Bank dollar draft for US$200,000.00 in exchange.

Chandiramani did not appear at the rendezvous and Ranigo allegedly lost the two cashiers checks and the dollar draft bought by petitioner. Ranigo reported the alleged loss of the checks and the dollar draft to Liong at half past four in the afternoon of December 22, 1987. Liong, in turn, informed Yang, and the loss was then reported to the police.

It transpired, however, that the checks and the dollar draft were not lost, for Chandiramani was able to get hold of said instruments, without delivering the exchange consideration consisting of the PCIB managers check and the Hang Seng Bank dollar draft.

At three oclock in the afternoon or some two (2) hours after Chandiramani and Ranigo were to meet in Makati City, Chandiramani delivered to respondent Fernando David at China Banking Corporation branch in San Fernando City, Pampanga, the following: (a) FEBTC Cashiers Check No. 287078, dated December 22, 1987, in the sum of P2.087 million; and (b) Equitable Cashiers Check No. CCPS 14-009467, dated December 22, 1987, also in the amount of P2.087 million. In exchange, Chandiramani got US$360,000.00 from David, which Chandiramani deposited in the savings account of his wife, Pushpa Chandiramani; and his mother, Rani Reynandas, who held FCDU Account No. 124 with the United Coconut Planters Bank branch in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. Chandiramani also deposited FEBTC Dollar Draft No. 4771, dated December 22, 1987, drawn upon the Chemical Bank, New York for US$200,000.00 in PCIB FCDU Account No. 4195-01165-2 on the same date.

Meanwhile, Yang requested FEBTC and Equitable to stop payment on the instruments she believed to be lost. Both banks complied with her request, but upon the representation of PCIB, FEBTC subsequently lifted the stop payment order on FEBTC Dollar Draft No. 4771, thus enabling the holder of PCIB FCDU Account No. 4195-01165-2 to receive the amount of US$200,000.00.

On December 28, 1987, herein petitioner Yang lodged a Complaint4 for injunction and damages against Equitable, Chandiramani, and David, with prayer for a temporary restraining order, with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 5479. The Complaint was subsequently amended to include a prayer for Equitable to return to Yang the amount of P2.087 million, with interest thereon until fully paid.[5

On January 12, 1988, Yang filed a separate case for injunction and damages, with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against FEBTC, PCIB, Chandiramani and David, with the RTC of Pasay City, docketed as Civil Case No. 5492. This complaint was later amended to include a prayer that defendants therein return to Yang the amount of P2.087 million, the value of FEBTC Dollar Draft No. 4771, with interest at 18% annually until fully paid.[6

On February 9, 1988, upon the filing of a bond by Yang, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 5479. A writ of preliminary injunction was subsequently issued in Civil Case No. 5492 also.

Meanwhile, herein respondent David moved for dismissal of the cases against him and for reconsideration of the Orders granting the writ of preliminary injunction, but these motions were denied. David then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals in a special civil action for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 14843, which was dismissed by the appellate court.

As Civil Cases Nos. 5479 and 5492 arose from the same set of facts, the two cases were consolidated. The trial court then conducted pre-trial and trial of the two cases, but the proceedings had to be suspended after a fire gutted the Pasay City Hall and destroyed the records of the courts.

After the records were reconstituted, the proceedings resumed and the parties agreed that the money in dispute be invested in Treasury Bills to be awarded in favor of the prevailing side. It was also agreed by the parties to limit the issues at the trial to the following:

1. Who, between David and Yang, is legally entitled to the proceeds of Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC) Cashiers Check No. CCPS 14-009467 in the sum of P2,087,000.00 dated December 22, 1987, and Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) Cashiers Check No. 287078 in the sum of P2,087,000.00 dated December 22, 1987, together with the earnings derived therefrom pendente lite?

2. Are the defendants FEBTC and PCIB solidarily liable to Yang for having allowed the encashment of FEBTC Dollar Draft No. 4771, in the sum of US$200,000.00 plus interest thereon despite the stop payment order of Cely Yang?[7

On July 4, 1995, the trial court handed down its decision in Civil Cases Nos. 5479 and 5492, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment in favor of defendant Fernando David against the plaintiff Cely Yang and declaring the former entitled to the proceeds of the two (2) cashiers checks, together with the earnings derived therefrom pendente lite; ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant Fernando David moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00; attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000.00 and to pay the costs. The complaint against Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) and Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC) is dismissed. The decision is without prejudice to whatever action plaintiff Cely Yang will file against defendant Prem Chandiramani for reimbursement of the amounts received by him from defendant Fernando David.

SO ORDERED.[8

In finding for David, the trial court ratiocinated:

The evidence shows that defendant David was a holder in due course for the reason that the cashiers checks were complete on their face when they were negotiated to him. They were not yet overdue when he became the holder thereof and he had no notice that said checks were previously dishonored; he took the cashiers checks in good faith and for value. He parted some $200,000.00 for the two (2) cashiers checks which were given to defendant Chandiramani; he had also no notice of any infirmity in the cashiers checks or defect in the title of the drawer. As a matter of fact, he asked the manager of the China Banking Corporation to inquire as to the genuineness of the cashiers checks (tsn, February 5, 1988, p. 21, September 20, 1991, pp. 13-14). Another proof that defendant David is a holder in due course is the fact that the stop payment order on [the] FEBTC cashiers check was lifted upon his inquiry at the head office (tsn, September 20, 1991, pp. 24-25). The apparent reason for lifting the stop payment order was because of the fact that FEBTC realized that the checks were not actually lost but indeed reached the payee defendant David.[9

Yang then moved for reconsideration of the RTC judgment, but the trial court denied her motion in its Order of September 20, 1995.

In the belief that the trial court misunderstood the concept of a holder in due course and misapprehended the factual milieu, Yang seasonably filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 52398.

On March 25, 1999, the appellate court decided CA-G.R. CV No. 52398 in this wise:

WHEREFORE, this court AFFIRMS the judgment of the lower court with modification and hereby orders the plaintiff-appellant to pay defendant-appellant PCIB the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00).

SO ORDERED.[10

In affirming the trial courts judgment with respect to herein respondent David, the appellate court found that:

In this case, defendant-appellee had taken the necessary precautions to verify, through his bank, China Banking Corporation, the genuineness of whether (sic) the cashiers checks he received from Chandiramani. As no stop payment order was made yet (at) the time of the inquiry, defendant-appellee had no notice of what had transpired earlier between the plaintiff-appellant and Chandiramani. All he knew was that the checks were issued to Chandiramani with whom he was he had (sic) a transaction. Further on, David received the checks in question in due course because Chandiramani, who at the time the checks were delivered to David, was acting as Yangs agent.

David had no notice, real or constructive, cogent for him to make further inquiry as to any infirmity in the instrument(s) and defect of title of the holder. To mandate that each holder inquire about every aspect on how the instrument came about will unduly impede commercial transactions, Although negotiable instruments do not constitute legal tender, they often take the place of money as a means of payment.

The mere fact that David and Chandiramani knew one another for a long time is not sufficient to establish that they connived with each other to defraud Yang. There was no concrete proof presented by Yang to support her theory.[11

The appellate court awarded P25,000.00 in attorneys fees to PCIB as it found the action filed by Yang against said bank to be clearly unfounded and baseless. Since PCIB was compelled to litigate to protect itself, then it was entitled under Article 2208[12 of the Civil Code to attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

Hence, the instant recourse wherein petitioner submits the following issues for resolution:

a - WHETHER THE CHECKS WERE ISSUED TO PREM CHANDIRAMANI BY PETITIONER;

b - WHETHER THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION BETWEEN PREM CHANDIRAMANI AND FERNANDO DAVID IS LEGITIMATE OR A SCHEME BY BOTH PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TO SWINDLE PETITIONER;

c - WHETHER FERNANDO DAVID GAVE PREM CHANDIRAMANI US$360,000.00 OR JUST A FRACTION OF THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING HIS SHARE OF THE LOOT;

d - WHETHER PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FERNANDO DAVID AND PCIB ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES.[13

At the outset, we must stress that this is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It is basic that in petitions for review under Rule 45, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to reviewing questions of law, questions of fact are not entertained absent a showing that the factual findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or are glaringly erroneous.[14 Given the facts in the instant case, despite petitioners formulation, we find that the following are the pertinent issues to be resolved:

a) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding herein respondent Fernando David to be a holder in due course; and

b) Whether the appellate court committed a reversible error in awarding damages and attorneys fees to David and PCIB.

On the first issue, petitioner Yang contends that private respondent Fernando David is not a holder in due course of the checks in question. While it is true that he was named the payee thereof, David failed to inquire from Chandiramani about how the latter acquired possession of said checks. Given his failure to do so, it cannot be said that David was unaware of any defect or infirmity in the title of Chandiramani to the checks at the time of their negotiation. Moreover, inasmuch as the checks were crossed, then David should have, pursuant to our ruling in Bataan Cigar & Cigarette Factory, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93048, March 3, 1994, 230 SCRA 643, been put on guard that the checks were issued for a definite purpose and accordingly, made inquiries to determine if he received the checks pursuant to that purpose. His failure to do so negates the finding in the proceedings below that he was a holder in due course.

Finally, the petitioner argues that there is no showing whatsoever that David gave Chandiramani any consideration of value in exchange for the aforementioned checks.

Private respondent Fernando David counters that the evidence on record shows that when he received the checks, he verified their genuineness with his bank, and only after said verification did he deposit them. David stresses that he had no notice of previous dishonor or any infirmity that would have aroused his suspicions, the instruments being complete and regular upon their face. David stresses that the checks in question were cashiers checks. From the very nature of cashiers checks, it is highly unlikely that he would have suspected that something was amiss. David also stresses negotiable instruments are presumed to have been issued for valuable consideration, and he who alleges otherwise must controvert the presumption with sufficient evidence. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden, according to David. He points out that the checks were delivered to him as the payee, and he took them as holder and payee thereof. Clearly, he concludes, he should be deemed to be their holder in due course.

We shall now resolve the first issue.

Every holder of a negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie a holder in due course. However, this presumption arises only in favor of a person who is a holder as defined in Section 191 of the Negotiable Instruments Law,[15 meaning a payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof.

In the present case, it is not disputed that David was the payee of the checks in question. The weight of authority sustains the view that a payee may be a holder in due course.[16 Hence, the presumption that he is a prima facie holder in due course applies in his favor. However, said presumption may be rebutted. Hence, what is vital to the resolution of this issue is whether David took possession of the checks under the conditions provided for in Section 52[17 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. All the requisites provided for in Section 52 must concur in Davids case, otherwise he cannot be deemed a holder in due course.

We find that the petitioners challenge to Davids status as a holder in due course hinges on two arguments: (1) the lack of proof to show that David tendered any valuable consideration for the disputed checks; and (2) Davids failure to inquire from Chandiramani as to how the latter acquired possession of the checks, thus resulting in Davids intentional ignorance tantamount to bad faith. In sum, petitioner posits that the last two requisites of Section 52 are missing, thereby preventing David from being considered a holder in due course. Unfortunately for the petitioner, her arguments on this score are less than meritorious and far from persuasive.

First, with respect to consideration, Section 24[18 of the Negotiable Instruments Law creates a presumption that every party to an instrument acquired the same for a consideration[19 or for value.[20 Thus, the law itself creates a presumption in Davids favor that he gave valuable consideration for the checks in question. In alleging otherwise, the petitioner has the onus to prove that David got hold of the checks absent said consideration. In other words, the petitioner must present convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption. Our scrutiny of the records, however, shows that the petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proof. The petitioners averment that David did not give valuable consideration when he took possession of the checks is unsupported, devoid of any concrete proof to sustain it. Note that both the trial court and the appellate court found that David did not receive the checks gratis, but instead gave Chandiramani US$360,000.00 as consideration for the said instruments. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court; they carry great weight when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[21

Second, petitioner fails to point any circumstance which should have put David on inquiry as to the why and wherefore of the possession of the checks by Chandiramani. David was not privy to the transaction between petitioner and Chandiramani. Instead, Chandiramani and David had a separate dealing in which it was precisely Chandiramanis duty to deliver the checks to David as payee. The evidence shows that Chandiramani performed said task to the letter. Petitioner admits that David took the step of asking the manager of his bank to verify from FEBTC and Equitable as to the genuineness of the checks and only accepted the same after being assured that there was nothing wrong with said checks. At that time, David was not aware of any stop payment order. Under these circumstances, David thus had no obligation to ascertain from Chandiramani what the nature of the latters title to the checks was, if any, or the nature of his possession. Thus, we cannot hold him guilty of gross neglect amounting to legal absence of good faith, absent any showing that there was something amiss about Chandiramanis acquisition or possession of the checks. David did not close his eyes deliberately to the nature or the particulars of a fraud allegedly committed by Chandiramani upon the petitioner, absent any knowledge on his part that the action in taking the instruments amounted to bad faith.[22

Belatedly, and we say belatedly since petitioner did not raise this matter in the proceedings below, petitioner now claims that David should have been put on alert as the instruments in question were crossed checks. Pursuant to Bataan Cigar & Cigarette Factory, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, David should at least have inquired as to whether he was acquiring said checks for the purpose for which they were issued, according to petitioners submission.

Petitioners reliance on the Bataan Cigar case, however, is misplaced. The facts in the present case are not on all fours with Bataan Cigar. In the latter case, the crossed checks were negotiated and sold at a discount by the payee, while in the instant case, the payee did not negotiate further the checks in question but promptly deposited them in his bank account.

The Negotiable Instruments Law is silent with respect to crossed checks, although the Code of Commerce[23 makes reference to such instruments. Nonetheless, this Court has taken judicial cognizance of the practice that a check with two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner means that it could only be deposited and not converted into cash.[24 The effects of crossing a check, thus, relates to the mode of payment, meaning that the drawer had intended the check for deposit only by the rightful person, i.e., the payee named therein. In Bataan Cigar, the rediscounting of the check by the payee knowingly violated the avowed intention of crossing the check. Thus, in accepting the cross checks and paying cash for them, despite the warning of the crossing, the subsequent holder could not be considered in good faith and thus, not a holder in due course. Our ruling in Bataan Cigar reiterates that in De Ocampo & Co. v. Gatchalian.[25

The factual circumstances in De Ocampo and in Bataan Cigar are not present in this case. For here, there is no dispute that the crossed checks were delivered and duly deposited by David, the payee named therein, in his bank account. In other words, the purpose behind the crossing of the checks was satisfied by the payee.

Proceeding to the issue of damages, petitioner merely argues that respondents David and PCIB are not entitled to damages, attorneys fees, and costs of suit as both acted in bad faith towards her, as shown by her version of the facts which gave rise to the instant case.

Respondent David counters that he was maliciously and unceremoniously dragged into this suit for reasons which have nothing to do with him at all, but which arose from petitioners failure to receive her share of the profit promised her by Chandiramani. Moreover, in filing this suit which has lasted for over a decade now, the petitioner deprived David of the rightful enjoyment of the two checks, to which he is entitled, under the law, compelled him to hire the services of counsel to vindicate his rights, and subjected him to social humiliation and besmirched reputation, thus harming his standing as a person of good repute in the business community of Pampanga. David thus contends that it is but proper that moral damages, attorneys fees, and costs of suit be awarded him.

For its part, respondent PCIB stresses that it was established by both the trial court and the appellate court that it was needlessly dragged into this case. Hence, no error was committed by the appellate court in declaring PCIB entitled to attorneys fees as it was compelled to litigate to protect itself.

We have thoroughly perused the records of this case and find no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, that:

[D]efendant David is entitled to [the] award of moral damages as he has been needlessly and unceremoniously dragged into this case which should have been brought only between the plaintiff and defendant Chandiramani.[26

A careful reading of the findings of facts made by both the trial court and appellate court clearly shows that the petitioner, in including David as a party in these proceedings, is barking up the wrong tree. It is apparent from the factual findings that David had no dealings with the petitioner and was not privy to the agreement of the latter with Chandiramani. Moreover, any loss which the petitioner incurred was apparently due to the acts or omissions of Chandiramani, and hence, her recourse should have been against him and not against David. By needlessly dragging David into this case all because he and Chandiramani knew each other, the petitioner not only unduly delayed David from obtaining the value of the checks, but also caused him anxiety and injured his business reputation while waiting for its outcome. Recall that under Article 2217[27 of the Civil Code, moral damages include mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, social humiliation, and similar injury. Hence, we find the award of moral damages to be in order.

The appellate court likewise found that like David, PCIB was dragged into this case on unfounded and baseless grounds. Both were thus compelled to litigate to protect their interests, which makes an award of attorneys fees justified under Article 2208 (2)[28 of the Civil Code. Hence, we rule that the award of attorneys fees to David and PCIB was proper.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals, dated March 25, 1999, in CA-G.R. CV No. 52398 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Callejo, Sr., J., on leave.

Jurisprudence: G.R. No. L-15126 November 30, 1961

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-15126           November 30, 1961

VICENTE R. DE OCAMPO & CO., plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANITA GATCHALIAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Vicente Formoso, Jr. for plaintiff-appellee.
Reyes and Pangalañgan for defendants-appellants.

LABRADOR, J.:

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Conrado M. Velasquez, presiding, sentencing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P600, with legal interest from September 10, 1953 until paid, and to pay the costs.

The action is for the recovery of the value of a check for P600 payable to the plaintiff and drawn by defendant Anita C. Gatchalian. The complaint sets forth the check and alleges that plaintiff received it in payment of the indebtedness of one Matilde Gonzales; that upon receipt of said check, plaintiff gave Matilde Gonzales P158.25, the difference between the face value of the check and Matilde Gonzales' indebtedness. The defendants admit the execution of the check but they allege in their answer, as affirmative defense, that it was issued subject to a condition, which was not fulfilled, and that plaintiff was guilty of gross negligence in not taking steps to protect itself.

At the time of the trial, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts, which reads as follows:

Plaintiff and defendants through their respective undersigned attorney's respectfully submit the following Agreed Stipulation of Facts;

First. — That on or about 8 September 1953, in the evening, defendant Anita C. Gatchalian who was then interested in looking for a car for the use of her husband and the family, was shown and offered a car by Manuel Gonzales who was accompanied by Emil Fajardo, the latter being personally known to defendant Anita C. Gatchalian;

Second. — That Manuel Gonzales represented to defend Anita C. Gatchalian that he was duly authorized by the owner of the car, Ocampo Clinic, to look for a buyer of said car and to negotiate for and accomplish said sale, but which facts were not known to plaintiff;

Third. — That defendant Anita C. Gatchalian, finding the price of the car quoted by Manuel Gonzales to her satisfaction, requested Manuel Gonzales to bring the car the day following together with the certificate of registration of the car, so that her husband would be able to see same; that on this request of defendant Anita C. Gatchalian, Manuel Gonzales advised her that the owner of the car will not be willing to give the certificate of registration unless there is a showing that the party interested in the purchase of said car is ready and willing to make such purchase and that for this purpose Manuel Gonzales requested defendant Anita C. Gatchalian to give him (Manuel Gonzales) a check which will be shown to the owner as evidence of buyer's good faith in the intention to purchase the said car, the said check to be for safekeeping only of Manuel Gonzales and to be returned to defendant Anita C. Gatchalian the following day when Manuel Gonzales brings the car and the certificate of registration, but which facts were not known to plaintiff;

Fourth. — That relying on these representations of Manuel Gonzales and with his assurance that said check will be only for safekeeping and which will be returned to said defendant the following day when the car and its certificate of registration will be brought by Manuel Gonzales to defendants, but which facts were not known to plaintiff, defendant Anita C. Gatchalian drew and issued a check, Exh. "B"; that Manuel Gonzales executed and issued a receipt for said check, Exh. "1";

Fifth. — That on the failure of Manuel Gonzales to appear the day following and on his failure to bring the car and its certificate of registration and to return the check, Exh. "B", on the following day as previously agreed upon, defendant Anita C. Gatchalian issued a "Stop Payment Order" on the check, Exh. "3", with the drawee bank. Said "Stop Payment Order" was issued without previous notice on plaintiff not being know to defendant, Anita C. Gatchalian and who furthermore had no reason to know check was given to plaintiff;

Sixth. — That defendants, both or either of them, did not know personally Manuel Gonzales or any member of his family at any time prior to September 1953, but that defendant Hipolito Gatchalian is personally acquainted with V. R. de Ocampo;

Seventh. — That defendants, both or either of them, had no arrangements or agreement with the Ocampo Clinic at any time prior to, on or after 9 September 1953 for the hospitalization of the wife of Manuel Gonzales and neither or both of said defendants had assumed, expressly or impliedly, with the Ocampo Clinic, the obligation of Manuel Gonzales or his wife for the hospitalization of the latter;

Eight. — That defendants, both or either of them, had no obligation or liability, directly or indirectly with the Ocampo Clinic before, or on 9 September 1953;

Ninth. — That Manuel Gonzales having received the check Exh. "B" from defendant Anita C. Gatchalian under the representations and conditions herein above specified, delivered the same to the Ocampo Clinic, in payment of the fees and expenses arising from the hospitalization of his wife;

Tenth. — That plaintiff for and in consideration of fees and expenses of hospitalization and the release of the wife of Manuel Gonzales from its hospital, accepted said check, applying P441.75 (Exhibit "A") thereof to payment of said fees and expenses and delivering to Manuel Gonzales the amount of P158.25 (as per receipt, Exhibit "D") representing the balance on the amount of the said check, Exh. "B";

Eleventh. — That the acts of acceptance of the check and application of its proceeds in the manner specified above were made without previous inquiry by plaintiff from defendants:

Twelfth. — That plaintiff filed or caused to be filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, a complaint for estafa against Manuel Gonzales based on and arising from the acts of said Manuel Gonzales in paying his obligations with plaintiff and receiving the cash balance of the check, Exh. "B" and that said complaint was subsequently dropped;

Thirteenth. — That the exhibits mentioned in this stipulation and the other exhibits submitted previously, be considered as parts of this stipulation, without necessity of formally offering them in evidence;

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this agreed stipulation of facts be admitted and that the parties hereto be given fifteen days from today within which to submit simultaneously their memorandum to discuss the issues of law arising from the facts, reserving to either party the right to submit reply memorandum, if necessary, within ten days from receipt of their main memoranda. (pp. 21-25, Defendant's Record on Appeal).

No other evidence was submitted and upon said stipulation the court rendered the judgment already alluded above.

In their appeal defendants-appellants contend that the check is not a negotiable instrument, under the facts and circumstances stated in the stipulation of facts, and that plaintiff is not a holder in due course. In support of the first contention, it is argued that defendant Gatchalian had no intention to transfer her property in the instrument as it was for safekeeping merely and, therefore, there was no delivery required by law (Section 16, Negotiable Instruments Law); that assuming for the sake of argument that delivery was not for safekeeping merely, delivery was conditional and the condition was not fulfilled.

In support of the contention that plaintiff-appellee is not a holder in due course, the appellant argues that plaintiff-appellee cannot be a holder in due course because there was no negotiation prior to plaintiff-appellee's acquiring the possession of the check; that a holder in due course presupposes a prior party from whose hands negotiation proceeded, and in the case at bar, plaintiff-appellee is the payee, the maker and the payee being original parties. It is also claimed that the plaintiff-appellee is not a holder in due course because it acquired the check with notice of defect in the title of the holder, Manuel Gonzales, and because under the circumstances stated in the stipulation of facts there were circumstances that brought suspicion about Gonzales' possession and negotiation, which circumstances should have placed the plaintiff-appellee under the duty, to inquire into the title of the holder. The circumstances are as follows:

The check is not a personal check of Manuel Gonzales. (Paragraph Ninth, Stipulation of Facts). Plaintiff could have inquired why a person would use the check of another to pay his own debt. Furthermore, plaintiff had the "means of knowledge" inasmuch as defendant Hipolito Gatchalian is personally acquainted with V. R. de Ocampo (Paragraph Sixth, Stipulation of Facts.).

The maker Anita C. Gatchalian is a complete stranger to Manuel Gonzales and Dr. V. R. de Ocampo (Paragraph Sixth, Stipulation of Facts).

The maker is not in any manner obligated to Ocampo Clinic nor to Manuel Gonzales. (Par. 7, Stipulation of Facts.)

The check could not have been intended to pay the hospital fees which amounted only to P441.75. The check is in the amount of P600.00, which is in excess of the amount due plaintiff. (Par. 10, Stipulation of Facts).

It was necessary for plaintiff to give Manuel Gonzales change in the sum P158.25 (Par. 10, Stipulation of Facts). Since Manuel Gonzales is the party obliged to pay, plaintiff should have been more cautious and wary in accepting a piece of paper and disbursing cold cash.

The check is payable to bearer. Hence, any person who holds it should have been subjected to inquiries. EVEN IN A BANK, CHECKS ARE NOT CASHED WITHOUT INQUIRY FROM THE BEARER. The same inquiries should have been made by plaintiff. (Defendants-appellants' brief, pp. 52-53)

Answering the first contention of appellant, counsel for plaintiff-appellee argues that in accordance with the best authority on the Negotiable Instruments Law, plaintiff-appellee may be considered as a holder in due course, citing Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law, 6th edition, page 252. On this issue Brannan holds that a payee may be a holder in due course and says that to this effect is the greater weight of authority, thus:

Whether the payee may be a holder in due course under the N. I. L., as he was at common law, is a question upon which the courts are in serious conflict. There can be no doubt that a proper interpretation of the act read as a whole leads to the conclusion that a payee may be a holder in due course under any circumstance in which he meets the requirements of Sec. 52.

The argument of Professor Brannan in an earlier edition of this work has never been successfully answered and is here repeated.

Section 191 defines "holder" as the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. Sec. 52 defendants defines a holder in due course as "a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: 1. That it is complete and regular on its face. 2. That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact. 3. That he took it in good faith and for value. 4. That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it."

Since "holder", as defined in sec. 191, includes a payee who is in possession the word holder in the first clause of sec. 52 and in the second subsection may be replaced by the definition in sec. 191 so as to read "a holder in due course is a payee or indorsee who is in possession," etc. (Brannan's on Negotiable Instruments Law, 6th ed., p. 543).

The first argument of the defendants-appellants, therefore, depends upon whether or not the plaintiff-appellee is a holder in due course. If it is such a holder in due course, it is immaterial that it was the payee and an immediate party to the instrument.

The other contention of the plaintiff is that there has been no negotiation of the instrument, because the drawer did not deliver the instrument to Manuel Gonzales with the intention of negotiating the same, or for the purpose of giving effect thereto, for as the stipulation of facts declares the check was to remain in the possession Manuel Gonzales, and was not to be negotiated, but was to serve merely as evidence of good faith of defendants in their desire to purchase the car being sold to them. Admitting that such was the intention of the drawer of the check when she delivered it to Manuel Gonzales, it was no fault of the plaintiff-appellee drawee if Manuel Gonzales delivered the check or negotiated it. As the check was payable to the plaintiff-appellee, and was entrusted to Manuel Gonzales by Gatchalian, the delivery to Manuel Gonzales was a delivery by the drawer to his own agent; in other words, Manuel Gonzales was the agent of the drawer Anita Gatchalian insofar as the possession of the check is concerned. So, when the agent of drawer Manuel Gonzales negotiated the check with the intention of getting its value from plaintiff-appellee, negotiation took place through no fault of the plaintiff-appellee, unless it can be shown that the plaintiff-appellee should be considered as having notice of the defect in the possession of the holder Manuel Gonzales. Our resolution of this issue leads us to a consideration of the last question presented by the appellants, i.e., whether the plaintiff-appellee may be considered as a holder in due course.

Section 52, Negotiable Instruments Law, defines holder in due course, thus:

A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions:

(a) That it is complete and regular upon its face;

(b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact;

(c) That he took it in good faith and for value;

(d) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.

The stipulation of facts expressly states that plaintiff-appellee was not aware of the circumstances under which the check was delivered to Manuel Gonzales, but we agree with the defendants-appellants that the circumstances indicated by them in their briefs, such as the fact that appellants had no obligation or liability to the Ocampo Clinic; that the amount of the check did not correspond exactly with the obligation of Matilde Gonzales to Dr. V. R. de Ocampo; and that the check had two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner, which practice means that the check could only be deposited but may not be converted into cash — all these circumstances should have put the plaintiff-appellee to inquiry as to the why and wherefore of the possession of the check by Manuel Gonzales, and why he used it to pay Matilde's account. It was payee's duty to ascertain from the holder Manuel Gonzales what the nature of the latter's title to the check was or the nature of his possession. Having failed in this respect, we must declare that plaintiff-appellee was guilty of gross neglect in not finding out the nature of the title and possession of Manuel Gonzales, amounting to legal absence of good faith, and it may not be considered as a holder of the check in good faith. To such effect is the consensus of authority.

In order to show that the defendant had "knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith," it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the exact fraud that was practiced upon the plaintiff by the defendant's assignor, it being sufficient to show that the defendant had notice that there was something wrong about his assignor's acquisition of title, although he did not have notice of the particular wrong that was committed. Paika v. Perry, 225 Mass. 563, 114 N.E. 830.

It is sufficient that the buyer of a note had notice or knowledge that the note was in some way tainted with fraud. It is not necessary that he should know the particulars or even the nature of the fraud, since all that is required is knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the note amounted bad faith. Ozark Motor Co. v. Horton (Mo. App.), 196 S.W. 395. Accord. Davis v. First Nat. Bank, 26 Ariz. 621, 229 Pac. 391.

Liberty bonds stolen from the plaintiff were brought by the thief, a boy fifteen years old, less than five feet tall, immature in appearance and bearing on his face the stamp a degenerate, to the defendants' clerk for sale. The boy stated that they belonged to his mother. The defendants paid the boy for the bonds without any further inquiry. Held, the plaintiff could recover the value of the bonds. The term 'bad faith' does not necessarily involve furtive motives, but means bad faith in a commercial sense. The manner in which the defendants conducted their Liberty Loan department provided an easy way for thieves to dispose of their plunder. It was a case of "no questions asked." Although gross negligence does not of itself constitute bad faith, it is evidence from which bad faith may be inferred. The circumstances thrust the duty upon the defendants to make further inquiries and they had no right to shut their eyes deliberately to obvious facts. Morris v. Muir, 111 Misc. Rep. 739, 181 N.Y. Supp. 913, affd. in memo., 191 App. Div. 947, 181 N.Y. Supp. 945." (pp. 640-642, Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law, 6th ed.).

The above considerations would seem sufficient to justify our ruling that plaintiff-appellee should not be allowed to recover the value of the check. Let us now examine the express provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law pertinent to the matter to find if our ruling conforms thereto. Section 52 (c) provides that a holder in due course is one who takes the instrument "in good faith and for value;" Section 59, "that every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course;" and Section 52 (d), that in order that one may be a holder in due course it is necessary that "at the time the instrument was negotiated to him "he had no notice of any . . . defect in the title of the person negotiating it;" and lastly Section 59, that every holder is deemed prima facieto be a holder in due course.

In the case at bar the rule that a possessor of the instrument is prima faciea holder in due course does not apply because there was a defect in the title of the holder (Manuel Gonzales), because the instrument is not payable to him or to bearer. On the other hand, the stipulation of facts indicated by the appellants in their brief, like the fact that the drawer had no account with the payee; that the holder did not show or tell the payee why he had the check in his possession and why he was using it for the payment of his own personal account — show that holder's title was defective or suspicious, to say the least. As holder's title was defective or suspicious, it cannot be stated that the payee acquired the check without knowledge of said defect in holder's title, and for this reason the presumption that it is a holder in due course or that it acquired the instrument in good faith does not exist. And having presented no evidence that it acquired the check in good faith, it (payee) cannot be considered as a holder in due course. In other words, under the circumstances of the case, instead of the presumption that payee was a holder in good faith, the fact is that it acquired possession of the instrument under circumstances that should have put it to inquiry as to the title of the holder who negotiated the check to it. The burden was, therefore, placed upon it to show that notwithstanding the suspicious circumstances, it acquired the check in actual good faith.

The rule applicable to the case at bar is that described in the case of Howard National Bank v. Wilson, et al., 96 Vt. 438, 120 At. 889, 894, where the Supreme Court of Vermont made the following disquisition:

Prior to the Negotiable Instruments Act, two distinct lines of cases had developed in this country. The first had its origin in Gill v. Cubitt, 3 B. & C. 466, 10 E. L. 215, where the rule was distinctly laid down by the court of King's Bench that the purchaser of negotiable paper must exercise reasonable prudence and caution, and that, if the circumstances were such as ought to have excited the suspicion of a prudent and careful man, and he made no inquiry, he did not stand in the legal position of a bona fide holder. The rule was adopted by the courts of this country generally and seem to have become a fixed rule in the law of negotiable paper. Later in Goodman v. Harvey, 4 A. & E. 870, 31 E. C. L. 381, the English court abandoned its former position and adopted the rule that nothing short of actual bad faith or fraud in the purchaser would deprive him of the character of a bona fide purchaser and let in defenses existing between prior parties, that no circumstances of suspicion merely, or want of proper caution in the purchaser, would have this effect, and that even gross negligence would have no effect, except as evidence tending to establish bad faith or fraud. Some of the American courts adhered to the earlier rule, while others followed the change inaugurated in Goodman v. Harvey. The question was before this court in Roth v. Colvin, 32 Vt. 125, and, on full consideration of the question, a rule was adopted in harmony with that announced in Gill v. Cubitt, which has been adhered to in subsequent cases, including those cited above. Stated briefly, one line of cases including our own had adopted the test of the reasonably prudent man and the other that of actual good faith. It would seem that it was the intent of the Negotiable Instruments Act to harmonize this disagreement by adopting the latter test. That such is the view generally accepted by the courts appears from a recent review of the cases concerning what constitutes notice of defect. Brannan on Neg. Ins. Law, 187-201. To effectuate the general purpose of the act to make uniform the Negotiable Instruments Law of those states which should enact it, we are constrained to hold (contrary to the rule adopted in our former decisions) that negligence on the part of the plaintiff, or suspicious circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man on inquiry, will not of themselves prevent a recovery, but are to be considered merely as evidence bearing on the question of bad faith. See G. L. 3113, 3172, where such a course is required in construing other uniform acts.

It comes to this then: When the case has taken such shape that the plaintiff is called upon to prove himself a holder in due course to be entitled to recover, he is required to establish the conditions entitling him to standing as such, including good faith in taking the instrument. It devolves upon him to disclose the facts and circumstances attending the transfer, from which good or bad faith in the transaction may be inferred.

In the case at bar as the payee acquired the check under circumstances which should have put it to inquiry, why the holder had the check and used it to pay his own personal account, the duty devolved upon it, plaintiff-appellee, to prove that it actually acquired said check in good faith. The stipulation of facts contains no statement of such good faith, hence we are forced to the conclusion that plaintiff payee has not proved that it acquired the check in good faith and may not be deemed a holder in due course thereof.

For the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby, reversed, and the defendants are absolved from the complaint. With costs against plaintiff-appellee.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., concurs in the result.

Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: State Investment House Inc. v. CA (1993)

G.R. No. 101163 January 11, 1993

Lessons Applicable:  Rights of the Holder (Negotiable Instruments Law)

FACTS:

• Nora B. Moulic issued to Corazon Victoriano, as security for pieces of jewelry to be sold on commission,2 post-dated Equitable Banking Corporation checks OF P 50,000 each


• Corazon negotiated the checks to State Investment House. Inc. (State)


• MOULIC failed to sell the pieces of jewelry, so she returned them to the payee before maturity of the checks. 


• The checks, however, could no longer be retrieved as they had already been negotiated


• before their maturity dates, MOULIC withdrew her funds from the drawee bank


• Upon presentment for payment, the checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds


• October 6, 1983: State sued to recover the value of the checks plus attorney's fees and expenses of litigation


• CA affirmed RTC: dismissed

ISSUE: W/N State has a right to recourse as holder in due course regardless if the sale did not push through against MOULIC

HELD: YES. Petition is Granted. 

Sec. 52. What constitutes a holder in due course. — A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upon its face; (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it was previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (c) That he took it in good faith and for value; (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.

• a prima facie presumption exists that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course


• burden of proving that STATE is not a holder in due course lies in MOULIC - failed


• As holder in due course, it holds the instruments free from any defect of title of prior parties, and from defenses available to prior parties among themselves


• State may, therefore, enforce full payment of the checks


• MOULIC cannot set up against STATE the defense that there was failure or absence of consideration


• That the post-dated checks were merely issued as security is not a ground for the discharge of the instrument as against a holder in due course. 


• For the only grounds are those outlined in Sec. 119 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:

Sec. 119. Instrument; how discharged. — A negotiable instrument is discharged: (a) By payment in due course by or on behalf of the principal debtor; (b) By payment in due course by the party accommodated, where the instrument is made or accepted for his accommodation; (c) By the intentional cancellation thereof by the holder; (d) By any other act which will discharge a simple contract for the payment of money; (e) When the principal debtor becomes the holder of the instrument at or after maturity in his own right.

• Obviously, MOULIC may only invoke paragraphs (c) and (d) as possible grounds for the discharge of the instrument. 


• But, the intentional cancellation contemplated under paragraph (c) is that cancellation effected by destroying the instrument either by tearing it up, burning it, or writing the word "cancelled" on the instrument.


• The act of destroying the instrument must also be made by the holder of the instrument intentionally. 


• Since MOULIC failed to get back possession of the post-dated checks, the intentional cancellation of the said checks is altogether impossible.


• acts which will discharge a simple contract for the payment of money under paragraph (d) are determined by other existing legislations since Sec. 119 does not specify what these acts are, e.g., Art. 1231 of the Civil Code which enumerates the modes of extinguishing obligations.


• Again, none of the modes outlined therein is applicable in the instant case as Sec. 119 contemplates of a situation where the holder of the instrument is the creditor while its drawer is the debtor. In the present action, the payee, Corazon Victoriano, was no longer MOULIC's creditor at the time the jewelry was returned.


• State failed to give Notice of Dishonor to MOULIC is of no moment. The need for such notice is not absolute; there are exceptions under Sec. 114 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:

Sec. 114. When notice need not be given to drawer. — Notice of dishonor is not required to be given to the drawer in the following cases: 

(a) Where the drawer and the drawee are the same person; 

(b) When the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract; 

(c) When the drawer is the person to whom the instrument is presented for payment: 

(d) Where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will honor the instrument; 

(e) Where the drawer had countermanded payment.

• she was responsible for the dishonor of her checks, hence, there was no need to serve her Notice of Dishonor, which is simply bringing to the knowledge of the drawer or indorser of the instrument, either verbally or by writing, the fact that a specified instrument, upon proper proceedings taken, has not been accepted or has not been paid, and that the party notified is expected to pay it


• No unjust enrichment -absence of a similar provision in Act No. 3135, as amended, it cannot be concluded that the creditor loses his right recognized by the Rules of Court to take action for the recovery of any unpaid balance on the principal obligation simply because he has chosen to extrajudicially foreclose the real estate mortgage pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney given him by the mortgagor in the contract of mortgage. 

Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Yang v. CA (2003)

G.R. No. 138074  August 15, 2003
Lessons Applicable: Rights of the holder (Negotiable Instruments Law)

FACTS:

• December 22, 1987: Cely Yang and Prem Chandiramani entered into an agreement whereby Yang was to give 2 P2.087M PCIB managers check in the amount of P4.2 million both payable to the order of Fernando David. Yang and Chandiramani agreed that the difference of P26K in the exchange would be their profit to be divided equally between them.


• Yang and Chandiramani also further agreed that the Yang would secure from FEBTC a dollar draft in the amount of US$200K, payable to PCIB FCDU Account No. 4195-01165-2, which Chandiramani would exchange for another dollar draft in the same amount to be issued by Hang Seng Bank Ltd. of Hong Kong.


• December 22, 1987, Yang procured the ff:

a) Equitable Cashiers Check No. CCPS 14-009467 in the sum of P2,087,000.00, dated December 22, 1987, payable to the order of Fernando David;

b) FEBTC Cashiers Check No. 287078, in the amount of P2,087,000.00, dated December 22, 1987, likewise payable to the order of Fernando David; and

c) FEBTC Dollar Draft No. 4771, drawn on Chemical Bank, New York, in the amount of US$200,000.00, dated December 22, 1987, payable to PCIB FCDU Account No. 4195-01165-2.

• December 22, 1987 1 p.m.: Yang gave the cashiers checks and dollar drafts to her business associate, Albert Liong, to be delivered to Chandiramani by Liongs messenger, Danilo Ranigo


• Ranigo was to meet Chandiramani at 2 p.m. at Philippine Trust Bank, Ayala Avenue, Makati where he would turn over Yangs cashiers checks and dollar draft to Chandiramani who, in turn, would deliver to Ranigo a PCIB managers check in the sum of P4.2 million and a Hang Seng Bank dollar draft for US$200K in exchange but Chandiramani did not appear 


• December 22, 1987 4 p.m.: Ranigo reported the alleged loss of the checks and the dollar draft to Liong. Liong, in turn, informed Yang, and the loss was then reported to the police.


• Chandiramani was able to get hold of the instruments


• Chandiramani delivered the 2 cashiers checks to Fernando David at China Banking Corporation branch in San Fernando City, Pampanga


• In exchange, he got US$360K from David, which he deposited in the savings account of his wife, Pushpa; and his mother, Rani Reynandas, who held FCDU Account No. 124 with the United Coconut Planters Bank branch in Greenhills


• He also deposited FEBTC Dollar Draft No. 4771, dated December 22, 1987, drawn upon the Chemical Bank, New York for US$200K in PCIB FCDU Account No. 4195-01165-2 on the same date.


• Yang requested FEBTC and Equitable to stop payment on the instruments she believed to be lost


• Both banks complied with her request


• Yang filed against David and Chandiramani


• CA affirms RTC: in favor of David 

ISSUE: W/N David is a holder in due course

HELD:

• Although negotiable instruments do not constitute legal tender, they often take the place of money as a means of payment


• checks were crossed


• Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law creates a presumption that every party to an instrument acquired the same for a consideration or for value


• David took the step of asking the manager of his bank to verify from FEBTC and Equitable as to the genuineness of the checks and only accepted the same after being assured that there was nothing wrong with said checks


• David did not close his eyes deliberately to the nature or the particulars of a fraud allegedly committed by Chandiramani upon the petitioner, absent any knowledge on his part that the action in taking the instruments amounted to bad faith

Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Vicente R. de Ocampo v. Gatchalian (1961)

G.R. No. L-26767   February 22, 1968

Lessons Applicable: Rights of the holder (Negotiable Instruments Law)


FACTS:

• Sept 8 1953 evening:  Anita C. Gatchalian was looking for a car for the use of her husband and the family and Manuel Gonzales who was accompanied by Emil Fajardois (personally known to Anita) offered her a car


• Manuel Gonzales represented to defendant Anita that he was duly authorized by Ocampo Clinic, the owner of the car, to look for a buyer and negotiate for and accomplish the sale, but which facts were not known to Ocampo


• September 9 1953 


• Anita requested Manuel to bring the car the day following together with the certificate of registration of the car so that her husband would be able to see same


• Manuel Gonzales told her that unless there is a showing that the party interested in the purchase is ready he cannot bring the certificate of registration


• Anita gave him a check which will be shown to the owner as evidence of buyer's GF in the intention to purchase, it being for safekeeping only of Manuel and to be returned


• For the hospitalization of the wife of Manuel, he paid the check to Ocampo clinic


• P441.75 - payment of said fees and expenses 


• P158.25 -given to Manual as balance
  


• Next Day: Manual did not appear so Anita issued a stop payment order


• Anita filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, a complaint for estafa against Manuel


• Appeal Manuel contends that:


• the check is not a negotiable instrument, under the facts and circumstances stated in the stipulation of facts - no delivery (Section 16, Negotiable Instruments Law) because only for safekeeping (conditional delivery)


• Ocampo is not a holder in due course 


• no negotiation prior to acquiring the check 


• check is not a personal check of Manuel 


• could have inquired why a person would use the check of another to pay his own debt, Gatchalian being personally acquainted with V. R. de Ocampo

ISSUES: 

1. W/N Ocampo is a holder in due course - NO


2. W/N prima facie holder in due course applies - NO

HELD: 

1. NO

• Sec. 191


• holder - payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer 


• Sec. 52


• holder in due course - holder who has taken the instrument under the ff conditions: 

1. That it is complete and regular on its face



2. That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, it such was the fact. 


3. That he took it in good faith and for value. 


4. That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it

• circumstances


• the amount of the check did not correspond exactly with the obligation of Matilde Gonzales to Dr. V. R. de Ocampo


• check had two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner, which practice means that the check could only be deposited but may not be converted into cash


• It was payee's duty to ascertain from the holder Manuel what the nature of his title to the check was or the nature of his possession. - failure: guilty of gross neglect and legal absence of GF


• In order to show that the defendant had 'knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to BF it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the exact fraud 


• It is sufficient that the buyer of a note had notice or knowledge that the note was in some way tainted with fraud

     2. NO

• Sec. 59


• every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course


• a possessor of the instrument is prima facie a holder in due course does not apply because there was a defect in the title of the holder (Manuel Gonzales) because the instrument is not payable to him or to bearer. 


• suspicious circumstance