Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Instruments Law
Compilation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW: (Act No. 2031) .................................................................................................. 8
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO vs MAURICIO SORIANO ..........................................................................................................................................................................................11
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 2
II. CONSIDERATION.......................................................................................................................................................65
SECTION 24.Presumption of Consideration............................................................................................................................................................................ 65
SECTION 25.Value, What Constitutes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
SECTION 26.What Constitutes Holder for Value .................................................................................................................................................................... 66
SECTION 27.When Lien on Instrument Constitutes Holder for Value .................................................................................................................................. 66
SECTION 28. Effect of Want of Consideration ........................................................................................................................................................................ 67
SECTION 29.Liability of Accommodation Party ...................................................................................................................................................................... 68
SADAYA vs SEVILLA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69
CRISOLOGO-JOSE vs CA .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69
STELCO MARKETING vs CA....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................70
TRAVEL-ON vs CA...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................70
BPI vs CA .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................71
AGRO-CONGLOMERATE vs CA..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................71
III. NEGOTIATION..........................................................................................................................................................72
SECTION 30.What Constitutes Negotiation ............................................................................................................................................................................ 72
SECTION 31.Endorsement; How Made ................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
SECTION 32.Endorsement Must Be of Entire Instrument ..................................................................................................................................................... 73
SECTION 33.Kinds of Endorsement ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
SECTION 34.Special Endorsement; Endorsement in Blank.................................................................................................................................................... 74
SECTION 35.Blank Endorsement; How Changed to Special Endorsement ........................................................................................................................... 75
SECTION 36.When Endorsement Restrictive .......................................................................................................................................................................... 75
SECTION 37.Effect of Restrictive Indorsement; Rights of Indorsee ...................................................................................................................................... 76
SECTION 38.Qualified Indorsement ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 76
SECTION 40.Indorsement of Instrument Payable to Bearer ................................................................................................................................................. 77
SECTION 41.Indorsement Where Payable to Two or More Persons .................................................................................................................................... 78
SECTION 42.Effect of Instrument Drawn or Indorsed to a Person as Cashier ..................................................................................................................... 78
SECTION 43.Indorsement Where Name is Misspelled, and So Forth ................................................................................................................................... 78
SECTION 44.Indorsement in Representative Capacity........................................................................................................................................................... 78
SECTION 45.Time of Indorsement; Presumption ................................................................................................................................................................... 79
SECTION 46.Place of Indorsement; Presumption .................................................................................................................................................................. 79
SECTION 47.Continuation of Negotiable Character ............................................................................................................................................................... 79
SECTION 48. Striking Out Indorsement................................................................................................................................................................................... 79
SECTION 49.Transfer Without Indorsement; Effect of .......................................................................................................................................................... 80
SECTION 50.When Prior Party May Negotiate Instrument ................................................................................................................................................... 80
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 3
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 4
X. ACCEPTANCE ..........................................................................................................................................................139
ACCEPTANCE; HOW MADE, AND SO FORTH ........................................................................................................................................................................ 139
HOLDER ENTITLED TO ACCEPTANCE ON FACE OF BILL ........................................................................................................................................................ 140
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 5
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 6
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 7
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 8
Page 9
Promissory Note
2 (maker, payee)
It is an unconditional promise
The maker
The maker
1 (presentment for payment)
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 10
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 11
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 12
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 13
Page 14
As to purpose
For payment
Memorandum check
The word memorandum written upon
the check describes the nature of the
contract
Does not differ from an ordinary check
except the word memorandum, mem
or memo is written upon its face.
Given by the drawer to the payee as
memorandum of indebtedness
The drawer may be sued the same as
upon a promissory note
Page 15
Assignability
Assignability is a more comprehensive term than
negotiability and pertains to contracts in general.
A person who takes an instrument by assignment takes
the instrument subject to the defenses obtaining
among the original parties
The assignor in good faith, does not warrant the
solvency of the debtor unless it has been expressly
stipulated or unless the insolvency was prior to the
assignment and of common knowledge. He merely
warrants the existence and legality of the credit
assigned at the time of the assignment.
SESBREO vs CA
FACTS: Raul Sesbreo made a money market placement in the amount of P300,000.00 with Philfinance.
Philfinance delivered to Raul Sesbreo a Denominated Custodian Receipt, issued by Pilipinas Bank, indicating
both their custody of the Delta Motors promissory note and to undertake the physical delivery of the promissory
note upon its maturity.
However when Raul Sesbreo made demands to Pilipinas Bank for the physical delivery of the promissory note,
the latter allowed Raul to examine the note which on its face has the stamp NON-NEGOTIABLE, but did not
release the the same as the note has yet to mature. When Raul made demand after the note matured, Pilipinas
Bank simply referred the matter to Philfinance for written instructions. Raul also made demands to Delta Motors
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 16
Page 17
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
What will govern in this particular situation? The intention of the person drawing or making such note.
Pay to Dean Largo or bearer the sum of P500,000 payable upon demand. (Sgd.) Shiela Licup: Is the document
payable to bearer? Yes this is payable to bearer as it is expressed to be so payable.
Pay to Dean Largo or order the sum of P1000 payable upon demand. (Sgd.) Shiela Licup: Is the document
payable to bearer? No, the document is not payable to bearer as Dean Largo is an existing payee and the maker
intended that she receives the said amount.
What if the maker does not intend to pay Dean Largo the said amount? The document is payable to bearer
because although Dean Largo is an existing person, the maker does not intend that she receives the proceeds
of such instrument. Thus an existing payee may be a fictitious payee.
SIR: Class, you have to know by heart the requisites because this particular provision is a usual suspect during
the Bar Exams. Even if the payees are existing persons, if the maker or drawer does not intend such person to
receive the proceeds, you may treat them as fictitious persons and the note becomes payable to bearer.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 35
Page 36
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 37
Page 38
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 39
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
AS TO A:
Holder in due course
Holder in due course
Holder in due course
Suppose A makes or draws an incomplete instrument and entrusts it to B for safekeeping or custody. B instead
completes the instrument and negotiates it to C, who is a holder in due course. May C enforce the note
against A? Yes, delivery to the agency or custodian is a sufficient delivery to bind the maker or drawer.
SECTION 16.Delivery; When Effectual; When Presumed. Every contract on a negotiable instrument is
incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto.
As between immediate parties, and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the
delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the party making,
drawing, accepting, or endorsing, as the case may be; and in such case the delivery may be shown to have
been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the
instrument.
But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by all
parties prior to him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed. And where the instrument is
no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by
him is presumed until the contrary is proved.
Suppose A makes a complete instrument: I promise to pay B or order the sum of P1000. (Sgd.) A. Later on, A
tore up the instrument without delivering the note to B. Did B acquire any right to the said instrument? No did
not acquire any right because no rights arise in respect to an instrument until it is delivered.
DBR vs SIMA WEI
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Not a forgery
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 54
Forgery
What is the difference between the two? In the first case, X is the intended payee, regardless of his name. In
the second, Juan Cruz is the intended payee, not X.
What is double intent in fraudulent impersonation? First, he intends to make the instrument payable to the
person physically present before him or to the person writing at the other end of the line, in case the
negotiation is by correspondence. Second, he intends to make the instrument payable to the person whom he
believes the stranger to be.
*Which is controlling? The first is the controlling intent except where the name of the payee was already
known to the maker or drawer, or was more particularly identified in some manner, e.g., by some designation,
description or title.
In our example does Xs signature of Juan Cruz constitute a forgery? No because X is the intended payee and
therefore, Xs signature of Juan Cruz would ordinarily not constitute a forgery but a signature of an assumed
name.
Macario Davide went to C and represented himself as Hilario Davide III. Because of such representation, C
issued a check payable to the order of Hilario Davide III, Governor of Cebu, the sum of P1 million, payable on
demand. Thereafter, the instrument was negotiated by Macario Davide to D. D wants to enforce the said
amount to C. Can he do that? No because the name of the payee was particularly described by some
designation. Therefore the second intent, i.e., the drawer intends to make the instrument payable to the person
whom he believes the stranger to be,
is controlling. This amounts to forgery and therefore, D cannot enforce the instrument against C.
SIR: Its already part of the exception. If X misrepresents in front of you passing off as Y, and you acted on such
misrepresentation, the rule is that forgery may not be present because you always go to the first intent, i.e., the
person who issued the check intends pay to the person who is physically present before him. However, this rule
admits of an exception, i.e., where the person or the name of the payee was already known to the maker or
drawer, or was more particularly identified in some manner, e.g., by some designation, description or title. In
our example, the payee was particularly identified in the instrument by some designation as the Governor of
Cebu. Even if C, did not know the physical appearance of the Governor of Cebu, C also made sure that he is well
protected by stating therein that he is paying Hilario Davide III, the Governor of Cebu, and not some other
person. Thus in the example: 1) there is forgery and 2) falls under the exception, therefore, D cannot enforce
the instrument against C.
What is the theory of actual intent? The drawer, among all other parties, in entertaining that person before
him, should be the one to discover or detect the forgery, because it is the drawer who directly transacted with
that person. The drawer is duty-bound to ascertain the identity of such person by asking for any personal
identification (Government issued IDs, Passport, Company ID) from that person before him or the former could
try to compare the signature of the latter using said IDs, and not entirely believe on the representation made by
that person, unless you know that person personally. Considering that it was the drawer who entertained that
person, then the law gives the obligation on your part and in fact the law would make that document issued as a
valid and binding negotiable instrument. It will never be considered by the law as forgery. Therefore, the first
intent is controlling, i.e., the drawer really intended to pay the person before him.
Given another reason for the rule: theory of estoppel or negligence. As between two innocent persons, the one
whose act was the cause of the loss should bear the consequence.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
In the same example of a bearer instrument, what if its the signature of the A (maker) that is forged: May E
enforce the note against the maker? Where the makers signature is forged, he cannot be held liable by any
holder, whether the holder is a holder in due course or not.
Order instrument: A - drawer, B payee, D drawee bank, C collecting bank, F forger; The check was
issued by A drawn against D worth P1 million payable to B. F, fraudulently gets hold of the check and forges
the signature of B. F then deposits the check in C collecting bank. C bank endorses the check to D drawee bank
and collects from D bank through the clearing house. Then, F, forger withdraws from C bank the proceeds of
the check and disappears:
May As drawer account be charged by D the drawee bank? As account cannot be charged by the drawee B for
the amount paid and if his account is charged, A can recover the amount from D, because as an order
instrument the depositary owes to the depositor an absolute and contractual duty to pay the check only to
the person to whom it is made payable or upon his genuine endorsement. The drawee bank has no legal right
to pay the money of the drawer on deposit with it to anyone except the drawer or its order. In this case, the
signature of B is forged, therefore, there was no genuine endorsement.
May the drawer collect from the collecting bank? No, the drawer has not right to collect from the collecting
bank, as the duty of the collecting bank to exercise care in collection is due only to the payee.
May drawee bank recover from the collecting bank? Yes, it may recover from the recipient of the payment such
as the collecting bank under a forged endorsement because the collecting bank, as an endorser, warranted that
the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be, and it has breached that warranty.
May the payee collect the amount due him from the drawer? Yes, the payee can collect from the drawer on
the basis of his claim of debt upon which the check in the first place had been issued. SIR: because there was no
payment.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 58
Drawer
Drawee bank
Why
The collecting bank warrants the genuineness and
regularity of all the signatures of the previous
endorsers contained in the said instrument, including
the payees, which turned out to be forged.
The law places to the drawee bank the obligation to
determine the genuineness of the signature because
it is the latter who knows the signatures of its
depositors as all his specimen signature are with it.
May a holder of a bill of exchange payable to bearer recover from the drawee if the endorsement turns out to
be a forgery? Yes provided the instrument is complete and such holder is a holder in due course, since
endorsement is not necessary to his title because in a bearer instrument, endorsement is made by mere
delivery, and in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him so as to
make them liable to him is conclusively presumed.
What is the legal effect if the drawee already accepted the bill and it was found out that the signature of the
drawer was forged?
1) The drawee bank, by principle of estoppel, cannot set up the defense of forgery because when he accepted
the bill, he admitted the genuineness of the signature of the drawer.
2) The drawer is not liable as his signature is inoperative and therefore he is not a party to the bill.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
II. CONSIDERATION
SECTION 24.Presumption of Consideration. Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have
been issued for a valuable consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become
a party thereto for value.
X issued a promissory note naming Y as payee. The note does not state whether X got a valuable
consideration. Is the negotiability of the note affected? No, because our law, there is prima facie presumption
that consideration was given.
Is the presumption disputable? Yes, you can present contrary proof.
X filed a case against Y arising from a promissory note without alleging the consideration for such note. Will it
affect the case and if so, who will prove that there was no consideration? No, because consideration is
presumed. The person who alleges that there was no consideration given has the burden of proving such
allegation.
What is the effect of lack of consideration? The promissory note is without effect and the payment of such
note is not demandable.
SECTION 25.Value, What Constitutes. Value is any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. An
antecedent or pre-existing debt constitutes value; and is deemed such whether the instrument is payable on
demand or at a future time.
What is value? It is any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract.
What is consideration? It is the cause, price or motive which induces a contracting party to enter into a
contract.
What is valuation consideration? An obligation to give, to do, not to do, in favor of a party who makes a
contract, such as the maker or endorser.
Give an example of a consideration in an obligation to give: To sell land or to deliver goods.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 65
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
TRAVEL-ON vs CA
FACTS: Petitioner Travel-On Inc. is a travel agency from which Arturo Miranda procured tickets on behalf of
airline passengers and derived commissions therefrom. Miranda was sued by petitioner to collect on the six
postdated checks he issued which were all dishonored by the drawee banks. Miranda, however, claimed that he
had already fully paid and even overpaid his obligations and that refunds were in fact due to him. He argued that
he had issued the postdated checks not for the purpose of encashment to pay his indebtedness but for purposes
of accommodation, as he had in the past accorded similar favors to petitioner. Petitioner however urges that
the postdated checks are per se evidence of liability on the part of private respondent and further argues that
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 70
Page 71
III. NEGOTIATION
SECTION 30.What Constitutes Negotiation. An instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one
person to another in such manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer, it is
negotiated by delivery; if payable to order, it is negotiated by the endorsement of the holder completed by
delivery.
What is negotiation? Negotiation is such transfer of an instrument from one person to another as to constitute
the transferee the holder of the instrument.
How is an instrument negotiated? If payable to bearer, it is negotiated by delivery; if payable to order, it is
negotiated by the endorsement of the holder completed by delivery.
What are the methods of transfer? 1) by assignment; 2) by operation of law; 3) by negotiation (either
endorsement completed by delivery or by mere delivery)
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 79
Page 80
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
V. LIABILITIES OF PARTIES
LIABILITY OF MAKER The maker of a negotiable instrument by making it engages that he will pay it
according to its tenor, and admits the existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse. [60]
What is the engagement made by the maker in making the instrument?
The maker engages that he will pay it according to its tenor.pr
What are the admissions made by the maker in making the instrument?
He admits the existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse.
Who has this capacity to indorse in that admission made by the maker?
The payee.
A makes a note in the amount of P1 million. Subsequently the note was transferred from A to B to C to D to E.
During the said transfer, there was an alteration as to the amount. P1 million becomes P10 million and the
same is now in the hands of a holder in due course, F. What is the engagement on the part of the maker?
A, maker, engages to pay P10million as the engagement of the maker is to pay absolutely according to its tenor.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 85
Page 86
SIR: A, drawer, B, payee, C, drawee. When a drawer issues a bill, primarily he is the debtor. In order to pay his
obligation, he delivers a bill to B, the payee. In effect, A is indebted to B. Prior to the acceptance on the part of C,
the person primarily liable is A, the drawer. C is merely a third person in the transaction between A and B, and C
is not a liable. Once C, the drawee, accepts the said bill from the payee, the drawee now becomes the acceptor
and there is a change in the rights and obligations of the parties. However, under Section 61 of your NIL,
regardless of whether or not there is an acceptance on the part the drawee, the law considers the drawer as
secondarily liable. In its technical sense, prior to the acceptance on the part of the drawee, it is the drawer who
is primarily liable because he is the one indebted to the payee.
May the drawer include in the bill a statement like I shall not be liable in case of payment or nonacceptance?
Yes, the law allows the drawer to negative or limit his liability to the holder by express stipulation.
Will it affect the negotiability of the instrument?
No because all the requisites of Section 1 of the NIL are present
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 87
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 88
Under the first view, what is the effect of Section 124 which provides that a holder in due course can recover
only the original tenor of the instrument?
This refers to the original tenor of the instrument taken from the standpoint of the person principally liable, Y,
the acceptor. In our example the original tenor of the instrument is P10 million, which the tenor of Ys
acceptance. If after his acceptance, a subsequent indorsee alters the bill to read P100 million, then Y could be
liable only for P10 million, the original tenor of his acceptance, even as to a holder in due course.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 92
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 96
Party negotiating by
delivery
Only to immediate
transferee
Qualified Indorser
General Indorser
1) subsequent holders in
due course
2) persons who derive
their title from a holder in
due course
3) immediate transferees,
even if they are not
holders in due course.
That the instrument is at
the time of his
indorsement valid and
subsisting.
Engages to pay the holder
or any intervening party
who may be compelled by
the holder to pay the
instrument whether such
dishonor arises from the
warranties or from other
causes such as insolvency.
As to their engagement:
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
(Sgd.) Y
(a)It is duly presented for payment and payment is refused or can not be obtained; or
(b)Presentment is excused and the instrument is overdue and unpaid. [83]
As a rule, is it required that presentment for payment be made in order to charge the person secondarily
liable?
Yes.
What are the exceptions?
1) where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will pay the instrument. (Sec.
79)
2) where the instrument was made or accepted for the indorser's accommodation and he has no reason to
expect that the instrument will be paid if presented. (Sec. 80)
3) where after the exercise of reasonable diligence presentment as required by this Act cannot be made;
(Section 82)
4) where the drawee is a fictitious person; (Section 82)
5) by waiver of presentment, express or implied. (Section 82)
6) when the instrument has been dishonored by non-acceptance. (Sec. 151)
When is the instrument considered dishonored by non-payment?
1) when it is duly presented for payment and payment is refused or cannot be obtained; or
2) when presentment is excused and the instrument is overdue and unpaid.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 110
Page 111
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 112
Page 113
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
WHEN BILL MAY BE TREATED AS PROMISSORY NOTE. Where in a bill drawer and drawee are the same
person, or where the drawee is a fictitious person, or a person not having capacity to contract, the holder may
treat the instrument, at his option, either as a bill of exchange or a promissory note. (130)
When can you treat a bill of exchange as a promissory note?
The holder may treat the instrument, at his option, either as a bill of exchange or a promissory note in the
following cases:
1) where in a bill drawer and drawee are the same person such as, in a draft drawn by an agent on his principal
by authority of the principal. Another example is a draft drawn by a bank on its branch.
2) where the drawee is a fictitious person.
3) where the drawee is a person not having capacity to contract.
Is there a need to give a notice of dishonor to the drawer in these instances?
1) Under Section 114, there is no need to give notice of dishonor in all of these cases in order to charge the
drawer.
2) Treating the bill as a note would constitute the drawer, the maker. Thus, considered as maker, the drawer
would then be a party primarily liable on the instrument to whom notice of dishonor need not be given.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 138
X. ACCEPTANCE
ACCEPTANCE; HOW MADE, AND SO FORTH The acceptance of a bill is the signification by the drawee of his
assent to the order of the drawer. The acceptance must be in writing and signed by the drawee. It must not
express that the drawee will perform his promise by any other means than the payment of money. (132)
What is acceptance?
Acceptance is the signification of the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer.
What are the requisites of actual acceptance?
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 139
Page 140
Can you accept the instrument by simply writing the word good?
Good constitutes an acceptance if written on the bill or check but not when written in a collateral document
such as a telegram.
TIME ALLOWED DRAWEE TO ACCEPT The drawee is allowed twenty-four hours after presentment in which
to decide whether or not he will accept the bill; but the acceptance, if given, dates as of the day of
presentation. (136)
How much time is given to the drawee to accept the bill?
The drawee is allowed twenty-four hours after presentment for acceptance in which to decide whether or not
he will accept the bill.
What is the effect if the drawee fails to communicate with the holder of the action taken by him within the 24
hours?
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 141
X holds the check and he presented it to the bank. Does the 24-hour period within which to accept and pay
the instrument apply to banks?
No it does not apply to banks since a check is present for payment and not acceptance.
LIABILITY OF DRAWEE RETAINING OR DESTROYING BILL Where a drawee to whom a bill is delivered for
acceptance destroys the same, or refuses within twenty-four hours after such delivery, or within such other
period as the holder may allow, to return the bill accepted or non-accepted to the holder, he will be deemed
to have accepted the same. (137)
Upon presentment for acceptance, the drawee destroyed the instrument. What is the legal effect?
The drawee will be deemed to have accepted the bill.
What is constructive acceptance?
Constructive acceptance is where the drawee will be deemed to have accepted the bill even if there is no actual
written acceptance by him.
Give examples of constructive acceptance:
1) where the drawee to whom a bill is delivered for acceptance destroys it
2) where the drawee refuses within 24 hours after such delivery, or within such time as is given to him, to return
the bill accepted or not accepted.
What is the effect of constructive acceptance?
The drawee will be primarily liable as an acceptor.
Is mere retention considered as acceptance?
Yes the mere failure to return the bill within 24-hours is an acceptance.
X brings the instrument to U, the drawee and asks U to accept the instrument. After giving U 3 hours to
examine the instrument, X demands that U return the same. Can U tell X that he will keep the instrument
within the period of 24-hours and return the instrument after such period?
No because the bill is at all times the property of the holder and he is entitled to have it when he wants to, and
Section 137 so provides. If the holder should demand its return before 24-hours, the drawee would be required
to comply on pain of being held as an acceptor; but return within 24-hours unaccepted would not be a dishonor
because the drawee could still accept by notification within the 24-hours.
Does this 24-hour period to present for acceptance apply to presentment for payment?
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
XII. PROTEST
IN WHAT CASES PROTEST NECESSARY Where a foreign bill appearing on its face to be such is dishonored by
non-acceptance, it must be duly protested for non-acceptance, and where such bill which has not previously
been dishonored by non-acceptance is dishonored by non-payment, it must be duly protested for nonpayment. If it is not so protested, the drawer and indorsers are discharged. Where a bill does not appear on
its face to be a foreign bill, protest thereof in case of dishonor is unnecessary. (152)
What is meant by protest?
By protest is meant a formal statement in writing made by a notary under his seal of office at the request of the
holder of a bill or note in which it is declared that the same was on a certain day presented for
acceptance/payment and such acceptance/payment was refused, whereupon the notary protests against all
parties to such instrument and declares that they will be held responsible for all loss or damage arising from its
dishonor. It means all the steps or acts accompanying the dishonor of a bill or note necessary to charge an
indorser.
When is it necessary?
Protest is required:
1) where the foreign bill is dishonored by non-acceptance.
2) where the foreign bill is dishonored by non-payment.
3) where the bill has been accepted for honor, it must be protested for non-payment before it is presented for
payment to the acceptor for honor.
4) where the bill contains a referee in case of need, it must be protest for non-payment before it is presented
for payment for the referee in case of need.
What is the effect of non-protest if such protest is necessary?
The drawer and indorsers are discharged.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 153
Page 154
As to their concept:
As to who may be an
acceptor/payor:
As to their form:
As to their purpose:
PREFERENCE OF PARTIES OFFERING TO PAY FOR HONOR. Where two or more persons offer to pay a bill for
the honor of different parties, the person whose payment will discharge most parties to the bill is to be given
the preference. (174)
What happens if two or more persons want to pay for honor?
The person whose payment will discharge most parties to the bill is to be given the preference.
EFFECT ON SUBSEQUENT PARTIES WHERE BILL IS PAID FOR HONOR. Where a bill has been paid for honor,
all parties subsequent to the party for whose honor it is paid are discharged, but the payer for honor is
subrogated for, and succeeds to, both the rights and duties of the holder as regards the party for whose honor
he pays and all parties liable to the latter. (175)
What is the effect on subsequent parties where the bill is paid for honor?
All parties subsequent to the party for whose honor it is paid are discharged.
Give an example:
A draws a bill payable to B or order with X, as the drawee. The bill is successively indorsed to C, D, E, and F,
holder. X does not pay and F has duly protested non-payment. Y pays for the honor of C.
1) D and E, parties subsequent to C, for whose honor the payment is made, are discharged;
2) Y, the payer for honor, acquires the rights of F, holder, as against C and A, B, and X, parties who are liable to
C.
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 158
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 167
Page 168
University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance | Based on the outlined discussion of EVS
Page 169