99.

State Investment House vs Court of Appeals and Moulic

Negotiable Instruments Law 217 SCRA 32 Notice of Dishonor Corazon Victoriano provided pieces of jewelry to Nora Moulic so that the latter may sell the same. As security for the jewelries, Moulic issued to Victoriano two post dated checks in the aggregate amount of P100,000.00. Moulic was not able to sell the jewelries so she returned the same to Victoriano. Victoriano was however unable to return the checks hence Moulic withdrew all her funds from the bank. Apparently, the checks were negotiated by Victoriano to State Investment House. So when the checks were dishonored, State Investment demanded Moulic to pay. Moulic refused to pay because she said the checks were merely used as security for the jewelry. Moulic further averred that she received no notice of dishonor. ISSUE: Whether or not State Investment House is entitled to be paid. HELD: Yes. The Holder of two checks which were dishonored because the drawer withdrew her funds from the bank can hold the drawer liable even if no notice of dishonor was given to the drawer, since the drawer had no right to expect that the drawee bank would honor the check.