  

. Ching and Nuguid had series of transactions with Nicdao. The former lent money to the latter. As security of her obligation, Nicdao issued checks to Ching but were dishonored by tha drawee bank because it was drawn against insufficient funds. Nicdao was acquitted for violation of BP 22. However, petitioners contend that Nicdao should still be liable for the amounts of dishonored checks in the aggregate sum of P 20, 950,000.00. It was proven that Nicdao was able to pay her indebtedness excluding the check amounting to 20, 950, 000.00 It was found out that the check was a stolen check. Nicdao nor her authorized personnels never issued or delivered such check to Ching.

ISSUE: WON Nicdao be held liable for the payment of the check. HELD: No. The check was an incomplete and undelivered instrument when it was stolen and ended up in the hands of complainant Ching. Sections 15 and 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is applicable in the case at bar. it is admitted by complainant Ching that said check in his possession was a blank check and was subsequently completed by him alone without authority from petitioner. Inasmuch as check no. 002524 was incomplete and undelivered in the hands of complainant Ching, he did not acquire any right or interest therein and cannot, therefore, assert any cause of action founded on said stolen check (Development Bank of the Philippines v. Sima We, 219 SCRA 736, 740). It goes without saying that since complainant Ching did not acquire any right or interest over check no. 002524 and cannot assert any cause of action founded on said check, petitioner has no obligation to make good the stolen check and cannot, therefore, be held liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.44

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful