You are on page 1of 14

Negotiable Instruments

Chapter 1
1 TRB vs CA 269 SCRA 15

Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation (Filriters) as registered owner of Central Bank


Certificates of Indebtedness (CBCI) (FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000) and having an aggregate value
of PESOS: THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P3,500,000.00)

Filriters transferred the CBCI to Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation


(Philfinance). The transfer was made by one of its agents and without the knowledge and
consent of the directors of Filriters

The instrument provides a promise "to pay Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, the
registered owner hereof."
Philfinance transferred the CBC which was still registered in the name of Filriters, to appellant Traders Royal
Bank (TRB). It was made under a repurchase agreement dated February 4, 1981, granting Philfinance the
right to repurchase the instrument

PhilFinance failed to repurchase


When Philfinance failed to buy back the note on maturity date, it executed a deed of assignment, conveying
to appellant TRB all its rights

TRB then sought the transfer and registration of CBC in its name before the Security and Servicing
Department of the Central Bank (CB). Central Bank, however, refused to effect the transfer and registration
in view of an adverse claim filed by defendant Filrite

TRB filed a special civil action for mandamus against the Central Bank in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

RTC
The suit, however, was subsequently treated by the lower court as a case of interpleader when CB prayed in
its amended answer that Filriters be impleaded as a respondent and the court adjudge which of them is
entitled to the ownership of CBCI No. D891.
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXIII found the assignment of CBCI No. D891 in favor of Philfinance, and the subsequent
assignment of the same CBCI by Philfinance in favor of Traders Royal Bank null and void and of no force and effect

Declaring the assignment of CBCI No. 891 in favor of PhilFinance, and the subsequent assignment of CBCI by PhilFinance in
favor of the plaintiff Traders Royal Bank as null and void and of no force and effect; Ordering the respondent Central Bank of the
Philippines to disregard the said assignment and to pay the value of the proceeds of the CBCI No. D891 to the Filriters Guaranty
Assurance Corporation

Failing to get a favorable judgment, TRB now comes to this Court on appeal.

CA

The records reveal that defendant Filriters is the registered owner of CBCI No. D891. Under a deed of assignment dated
November 27, 1971, Filriters transferred CBCI No. D891 to Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (Philfinance).
Subsequently, Philfinance transferred CBCI No. D891, which was still registered in the name of Filriters, to appellant Traders
Royal Bank (TRB). The transfer was made under a repurchase agreement dated February 4, 1981, granting Philfinance the right
to repurchase the instrument on or before April 27, 1981. When Philfinance failed to buy back the note on maturity date, it
executed a deed of assignment, dated April 27, 1981, conveying to appellant TRB all its right and the title to CBCI No. D891.
In the appellate court, petitioner argued that the subject CBCI was a negotiable instrument, and having
acquired the said certificate from Philfinance as a holder in due course, its possession of the CBCI is free
from any defect of title.

The appellate court said that the CBCI is not a negotiable instrument, since the instrument clearly stated that
it was payable to Filriters, the registered owner. It lacked the words of negotiability, which serve as an
expression of consent that the instrument may be transferred by negotiation.

Issue:

Whether the CBCI is a negotiable instrument.

Held:

No.

The subject CBCI is not a negotiable instrument in the absence of words of negotiability
within the meaning of the negotiable instruments law. The instrument provides a promise
"to pay Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, the registered owner hereof." Very
clearly, the instrument is payable only to Filriters, the registered owner, whose name is
inscribed thereon. It lacks the words of negotiability
No. The petition is without merit. The CBCI is read,
x x x The Central Bank of the Philippines (the Bank) for value received, hereby promises to
pay to bearer, or if this Certificate of indebtedness be registered, to FILRITERS
GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, the Registered owner hereof, the principal
sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS. x x x

As worded, the instrument provides a promise to pay Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, the
registered owner hereof. Very clearly, the instrument is payable only to Filriters, the registered owner,
whose name is inscribed thereon. It lacks the words of negotiability which should have served as an
expression of consent that the instrument may be transferred by negotiation.

A reading of the subject CBCI indicates that the same is payable to FILRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE
CORPORATION, and to no one else, thus, discounting the petitioners submission that the same is a
negotiable
instrument. The language of negotiability which characterize a negotiable paper as a credit instrument is its
freedom to circulate as a substitute for money.

FACTS:

Filriters through a Detached Agreement transferred ownership to Philfinance


a Central Bank Certificate of Indebtedness. It was only through one of its
officers by which the CBCI was conveyed without authorization from the
company. Petitioner and Philfinance later entered into a Repurchase
agreement, on which petitioner bought the CBCI from Philfinance. The latter
agreed to repurchase the CBCI but failed to do so. When the petitioner tried
to have it registered in its name in the CB, the latter didn't want to recognize
the transfer.

HELD: The CBCI is not a negotiable instrument. The instrument provides for
a promise to pay the registered owner Filriters. Very clearly, the instrument
was only payable to Filriters. It lacked the words of negotiability which should
have served as an expression of the consent that the instrument may be
transferred by negotiation.

The language of negotiability which characterize a negotiable paper as a


credit instrument is its freedom to circulate as a substitute for money. Hence,
freedom of negotiability is the touchstone relating to the protection of
holders in due course, and the freedom of negotiability is the foundation for
the protection, which the law throws around a holder in due course. This
freedom in negotiability is totally absent in a certificate of indebtedness as it
merely acknowledges to pay a sum of money to a specified person or entity
for a period of time.

The transfer of the instrument from Philfinance to TRB was merely an


assignment, and is not governed by the negotiable instruments law. The
pertinent question then iswas the transfer of the CBCI from Filriters to
Philfinance and subsequently from Philfinance to TRB, in accord with existing
law, so as to entitle TRB to have the CBCI registered in its name with the
Central Bank? Clearly shown in the record is the fact that Philfinances title
over CBCI is defective since it acquired the instrument from Filriters
fictitiously. Although the deed of assignment stated that the transfer was for
value received, there was really no consideration involved. What happened
was Philfinance merely borrowed CBCI from Filriters, a sister corporation.
Thus, for lack of any consideration, the assignment made is a complete
nullity. Furthermore, the transfer wasn't in conformity with the regulations
set by the CB. Giving more credence to rule that there was no valid transfer
or assignment to petitioner.

2 CRIPTAL vs CA 71 scra 442

3 EDUGUE vs ocampo 86 phil 216


4 New pacific timber vs seneris 101 scra 686
5 Roman catholic of malolos vs iac 191 scra 411
6 Tibajia vs ca 223 scra 163
7 Sebreno vs ca 222 scra 466
8 Pbc vs aruego 102 scra 530
9 Inciong vs ca 257 scra 578
Facts:

Rene Naybe took out a loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC) in
the amount of P50k.

Naybe was able to convince Baldomero Inciong, Jr. and Gregorio Pantanosas to
co-sign with him as co-makers. holding themselves jointly and severally liable to
private respondent Philippine Bank of Communications

PBC demanded payment from the three but still no payment was made

The promissory note went due and it was left unpaid.

PBC then sued the three but the court later released Pantanosas(allegation that
they were induced to sign the promissory note on the belief that it was only for
P5,000.00, ) from its obligations. Naybe left for Saudi Arabia hence cant be
issued summons and the complaint against him was subsequently dropped.
Inciong was left to face the suit. He argued that that since the complaint against
Naybe was dropped, and that Pantanosas was released from his obligations, he too
should have been released.

Issue:

Whether petitioner is liable.

Ruling:

Where the promissory note expressly states that the three signatures therein
are jointly and severally liable, any one or some or all of them may be
proceeded against for the entire obligationthe choice is left to the solidary
creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection.

Yes, petitioner (INCIONG) is liable.


1. failure to allege the fact that his consent was vitiated that the loan was only for
the amount of P5,000.00, the promissory note stated the amount of P50,000.00.

The above-stated points are clearly factual. Petitioner is to be reminded of the basic rule
that this Court is not a trier of facts. Having lost the chance to fully ventilate his factual
claims below, petitioner may no longer be accorded the same opportunity in the absence
of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court below. Had he presented Judge
Pantanosas affidavit before the lower court, it would have strengthened his claim that the
promissory note did not reflect the correct amount of the loan.

Nor is there merit in petitioners assertion that since the promissory note is not a public
deed with the formalities prescribed by law but . . . a mere commercial paper which does
not bear the signature of . . . attesting witnesses, parol evidence may overcome the
contents of the promissory note. 9 The first paragraph of the parol evidence rule10 states:

When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as


containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.

Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document.

What is required is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded on long
experience that written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which
rests in fleeting memory only, that it would be unsafe, when parties have expressed the
terms of their contract in writing, to admit weaker evidence to control and vary the
stronger and to show that the
parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the writing signed by
them. 11 Thus, for the parol evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any
particular form, or be signed by both parties. 12 As a general rule, bills, notes and other
instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parol or
extrinsic evidence. 13

2. argument which is based on Article 2080 of the Civil Code is untenable.


-provides that guarantors are released from their obligations if the creditors shall
release their debtors. It is to be noted however that Inciong did not sign the
promissory note as a guarantor. He signed it as a solidary co-maker.

Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three
signatories therein are jointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them
may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the
solidary creditor (PBC) to determine against whom he will enforce
collection. Consequently, the dismissal of the case against Pontanosas may not be
deemed as having discharged Inciong from liability as well. As regards Naybe,
suffice it to say that the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. Inciong,
therefore, may only have recourse against his co-makers, as provided by law.

. Petitioner signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a


guarantor. As a result, he is liable for the entire obli

10 Rpb vs ca 216 scra 738


Defendant (President) and Canlas (Treasurer) of Worldwide Garment
Manufacturing were authorized to apply for credit facilities with the petitioner
Republic Planters Bank.

Planters issued nine promissory notes, each of which were uniformly worded as to
hold people jointly and severally liable.

Petitioner filed a complaint for the recovery of sums of money by the nine
promissory notes originally against Worldwide Manufacturing as defendant but
was amended because they changed their corporate name to Pinch Manufacturing
Corporation.
Canlas filed an amended answer where he denied having issued the promissory
notes because he issued them in behalf of World-wide and not Pinch.

Issue:
Whether Fermin Canlas is liable.

Ruling:
Yes, private respondent is solidarily liable on each of the Promissory notes.

The fact that the singular pronoun is used indicates that the promise is individual
as to each other; meaning that each of the co-signers is deemed to have made an
independent singular promise to pay the notes in full.

Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names on the
face of promissory notes are makers and are liable as such.

Also, it is clear that he is solidarily liable.

Finally, the change of corporate name did not extinguish the personality of the
original.

A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation, and whether
effected by special act or under a general law, has no affect on the identity of the
corporation, or on its property, rights, or liabilities.

As a general rule, officers or directors under the old corporate name bear no
personal liability for acts done or contracts entered into by officers of the
corporation, if duly authorized. Inasmuch as such officers acted in their capacity
as agent of the old corporation and the change of name meant only the
continuation of the old juridical entity, the corporation bearing the same name is
still bound by the acts of its agents if authorized by the Board. Under the
Negotiable Instruments Law, the liability of a person signing as an agent is
specifically provided for as follows:
Sec. 20. Liability of a person signing as agent and so forth. Where the instrument
contains or a person adds to his signature words indicating that he signs for or on
behalf of a principal , or in a representative capacity, he is not liable on the
instrument if he was duly authorized; but the mere addition of words describing
him as an agent, or as filling a representative character, without disclosing his
principal, does not exempt him from personal liability.
Where the agent signs his name but nowhere in the instrument has he disclosed
the fact that he is acting in a representative capacity or the name of the third party
for whom he might have acted as agent, the agent is personally liable to take
holder of the instrument and cannot be permitted to prove that he was merely
acting as agent of another and parol or extrinsic evidence is not admissible to
avoid the agent's personal liability
11 Ponce vs ca 90 scra 533
12 Kalalo vs luz 34 scra 337
13 Ebc vs ca 161 scra 518
14 Caltex vs ca 212 scra 448
15 CALTEX V. CA 12 SCRA 448

FACTS: Security bank issued Certificates of Time Deposits to Angel dela


Cruz. The same were given by Dela Cruz to petitioner in connection to his
purchase of fuel products of the latter.

On a later date, Dela Cruz approached the bank manager, communicated the
loss of the certificates and requested for a reissuance.

Upon compliance with some formal requirements, he was issued


replacements.

Thereafter, he secured a loan from the bank where he assigned the


certificates as security.

Here comes the petitioner, averred that the certificates were not actually lost
but were given as security for payment for fuel purchases. The bank
demanded some proof of the agreement but the petitioner failed to comply.
The loan matured and the time deposits were terminated and then applied to
the payment of the loan. Petitioner demands the payment of the certificates
but to no avail.

HELD: CTDs are negotiable instruments. The documents provide that the
amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor. And who, according
to the document, is the depositor? It is the "bearer." The documents do not
say that the depositor is Angel de la Cruz and that the amounts deposited
are repayable specifically to him. Rather, the amounts are to be repayable to
the bearer of the documents or, for that matter, whosoever may be the
bearer at the time of presentment.

If it was really the intention of respondent bank to pay the amount to Angel
de la Cruz only, it could have with facility so expressed that fact in clear and
categorical terms in the documents, instead of having the word

"BEARER" stamped on the space provided for the name of the depositor in
each CTD. On the wordings of the documents, therefore, the amounts
deposited are repayable to whoever may be the bearer thereof. Thus,
petitioner's aforesaid witness merely declared that Angel de la Cruz is the
depositor "insofar as the bank is concerned," but obviously other parties not
privy to the transaction between them would not be in a position to know
that the depositor is not the bearer stated in the CTDs. Hence, the situation
would require any party dealing with the CTDs to go behind the plain import
of what is written thereon to unravel the agreement of the parties thereto
through facts aliunde. This need for resort to extrinsic evidence is what is
sought to be avoided by the Negotiable Instruments Law and calls for the
application of the elementary rule that the interpretation of obscure words or
stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.

The next query is whether petitioner can rightfully recover on the CTDs. This
time, the answer is in the negative. The records reveal that Angel de la Cruz,
whom petitioner chose not to implead in this suit for reasons of its own,
delivered the CTDs amounting to P1,120,000.00 to petitioner without
informing respondent bank thereof at any time. Unfortunately for petitioner,
although the CTDs are bearer instruments, a valid negotiation thereof for the
true purpose and agreement between it and De la Cruz, as ultimately
ascertained, requires both delivery and indorsement. For, although petitioner
seeks to deflect this fact, the CTDs were in reality delivered to it as a security
for De la Cruz' purchases of its fuel products. Any doubt as to whether the
CTDs were delivered as payment for the fuel products or as a security has
been dissipated and resolved in favor of the latter by petitioner's own
authorized and responsible representative himself.

In a letter dated November 26, 1982 addressed to respondent Security Bank,


J.Q. Aranas, Jr., Caltex Credit Manager, wrote: ". . . These certificates of
deposit were negotiated to us by Mr. Angel dela Cruz to guarantee his
purchases of fuel products." This admission is conclusive upon petitioner, its
protestations notwithstanding. Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission
or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and
cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon

16 Pnb vs concepcion mining 5 scra 745


17 Dela Victoria vs burgos 245 scra 374
18 Db of rizal sim wei 219 scra 736
19 Dep bank vs ebrada 65 scra 680
20 Rpb vs ca 216 scra 738
21 Francisco vs ca 319 scra 354
22 Pcib vs ca 350 scra 446
23 Asso. Bank vs ca 252 scra 620
24 Pnb vs quimpo158 scra 582
25 Calinog vs pnb 51 OG 4104 (CA)
26 Mwss vs ca 143 scra 20
27 Pnb vs ca 25 scra 693
28 MLT INC vs CA 182 scra 251
29 Rpb vs ca 196 scra 100
30 Geupewaz vs ca 218 scra 682
31 Pnb vs ca 256 scra 491
Chapter 2
1 Pineda vs dela rama 127 scra 671
2 Ang tiong vs ting 22 scra 713
3 Travel-on inc vs ca 210 scra 351
4 Agro conglomerates vs ca 348 scra 450
5 Prudencio vs ca 143 scra 7
6 People vs maniego 148 scra 30

Chapter 3
1 Bpi vs ca

Chapter 4
1 Rep vs equitable bank 10 scra 8
2 Mesina vs iac 145 scra 497
3 Bpi vs ca 232 scra 302
4 Atlantico vs auditor gen 81 scra 335
5 De ocampo vs gatchalian 3 scra 596

Chapter 5
1 Araneta vs perez 14 scra 498
2 Palomares vs ca 288 scra 422
3 Inciong vs ca 257 scra 578
4 Pnb vs ca 25 scra 693
5 Sythang vs santos 54 OG 7748 CA

NOTICE OF DISHONOR (VII)


1 Hsbc vs peoples bank 35 scra 140

DISCHARGE (VIII)
1 State inv vs ca 217 scra 32

BILLS OF EXCHANGE-FORM
1 Pb com vs aruego 102 scra 530
2 Citytrust vs ca 196 scra 553

CHECKS
1 Moran vs ca 230 scra 799
2 Firestone tire vs chaves & co 18 scra 356
3 Pacheco vs ca 319 scra 59
4 Stelco vs ca 210 scra 59
5 People vs ca, tugbang 196 scra 341
6 Sycip vs ca 328 scra 447
7 BPI vs CA 326 SCRA 641
8 BPI Express Card vs CA 296 SCRA 260
9 Tan vs CA 239 SCRA 310
10 RBP vs CA 196 SCRA 100
11 Fareast Realty vs CA 166 SCRA 256
12 Paba vs A.U. Valencia & Co. 284 SCRA 643
13 PCIB vs CA 350 SCRA 446
14 SBTC vs CA 291 SCRA 33
15 Metrobank vs CA 194 SCRA 169
16 BPI vs IAC 219SCRA 644
17 Bataan Cigar vs CA 230 SCRA 643
18 Gempesaw vs CA 218 SCRA 682
19 State inv. Vs IAC 175 SCRA 310
20 Asso. Bank vs CA 208 SCRA 465

MUTUUM (Interest)
1 Reformina vs Tomol 139 SCRA 260
2 FTI vs CA 262 SCRA 339
3 RPB vs CA 216 SCRA 738
4 Nakpil & Sons vs CA 106 SCRA 334
5 GSIS vs CA 145 SCRA 311

DEPOSITS
1 CA AGRO vs CA 219 SCRA 426
2 SIA vs CA 222 SCRA 426
3 BPI vs IAC 164 SCRA 630

BANKING
1 Citytrust vs IAC 232 SCRA 559
2 OBM vs CA 172 SCRA 521
3 Fidelity Savings vs Cenzon 184 SCRA 141

SECURITY/GUARANTY
1 Tomey Assurance vs OR 80 SCRA 262
2 Lirag Textiles vs SSS 153 SCRA 338
3 Picson vs Picson 61 SCRA 67
4 RCBC vs CEPRO 115 SCRA 777
5 Willex vs CA 256 SCRA 478
6 Atok Finance vs CA 222 SCRA 232
7 Pastoral vs Mutual Sec. Ins. 14 SCRA 1011
8 Prudential Bank vs IAC 216 SCRA 257
9 PNB vs Pineda 197 SCRA 1
10 PNB vs CA 198 SCRA 767
11
Additional Cases: NEGO

LETTERS OF CREDIT
1 Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs De losAngeles, 154 SCRA
543(1998)
2 Insular Bank of Asia & America vs IAC, 167 SCRA 450 (1988)
3 Bank of America vs CA, 228 SCRA 357 (1993)
4 Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp vs CA 358 SCRA 671 (2001)
5 PNB vs San Miguel Corp. No. 186063, January 15, 2014

TRUST RECEIPTS LAW


1 Consolidated Bank & Trust Corp. vs CA, 356 SCRA 671 (2001)
2 Anthony L. Ng vs People, G.R. No. 173905, April 23, 2010
3 Land Bank of The Philippines vs Perez, G.R. No. 166884, June 13 2012
4 Hur Tin Yang vs People, G.R. no. 195117, August 14, 2013
5 PNB vs. Se, Jr. 256 SCARA 380 (1996)
6 PNB vs Sayo, Jr.292 SCRA 202 (1998)

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW


FORMS AND INTERPRETATION
1 Equitable Bank Corp. vs IAC and The Edward J Neil Co., G.R. No. 74451 May
25, 1988
2 Juanita Salas vs. CA and First Finance & Leasing Corp. G.R. No. 76788 January
22, 1990
3 People vs. Gilbert R.Wagas G.R. 157943,September 4, 2013
4 Education Co. Inc. vs. Mauricio A. Soriano et, al. G.R. No. L-22405, June 30,
1971
5 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of the Phil vs. CA and Luzon Dev. Bank G.R. No.
113236, March 5, 2001
6 Prudential Bank vs CIR G.R. No. 180390, July 27, 2011

COMPLETION AND DELIVERY


1 Ting Ting Pua vs Spouses Tiong and Teng G.R. No.198660, October 23, 2013
2 Quirino Gonzales Logging Concessionaire, Quirino Gonzales and Eufemis
Gonzales vs CA and Republic Planters Bank, G.R. no. 126568, April 30, 2003
3 San Miguel Corp. vs Puzon Jr. G.R. No. 167567, 22 Sept. 2010
4 Equitable Banking Corp. vs. Special Steel Products, June 13, 2012

SIGNATURE
1 The Phil. Bank of Commerce vs. Josem. Aruego, G.R. Nos. L-25836-37, January
31,1981
2 Westmont Bank (for. Associated Banking Corp.) vs. Eugene Ong, G.R.
No.132560,Jan. 30, 2002
3 Ramon K. Ilusorio vs. CA, G.R. No. 139130, Nov. 27, 2002
4 BPI vs. Casa Montessori Internationale and Leonardo T. Yabut, G.R. No. 149454,
May28, 2004
5 Samsung Const. Comp. Phils Inc. vs Far East Bank &Trust Co. & CA G.R. No.
129015 Aug 13, 2004
6 PNB vs. FF Cruz and Co. G.R.No. 17325, July 25, 2011
7 Phil. Commercial International Bank vs Balmaceda, G.R. No. 158143, Sept.21,
2011
CONSIDERATION
1 Travel-On vs CA and Arturo S.Miranda, G.R. No. L-56169, June 26, 1992
2 Remigio S. Ong vs People & CA G.R. No. 139006, Nov. 27 2000
3 Charles Lee,Chua Siok Suy, Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap, Richard Velasco and
Alfonso Co vs CA and Phil. Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 117913 Feb. 1,
2002
4 Quirino Gonzales Logging Concessionaire, Quirino Gonzales & Eufemia
Gonzales vs CA & Republic Planters Bank, G.R. No. 126568, April 30, 2003
5 Cayanan vs. North Star Intl Travel Inc. G.R. No. 172954, Oct. 5, 2011

ACCOMMODATION PARTY
1 People vs. Maniego, 148 SCRA 30 (1987)
2 Town Savings and Loan Bank Inc. vs CA, 223SCRA 459 (1993)
3 Gonzales vs. Phil. Commercial and Intl Bank G.R. No. 180257, Feb 23, 2011

NEGOTIATION
1 Ang Tek Lian vs. CA, G.R. No. L-2516, Sept 25, 1950

RIGHTS OF THE HOLDER


1 Vicente R. De Ocampo & Co. vs Anita Gatchalian, et al., G.R. No. L-15126, Nov.
30, 1961
2 Stelco Marketing Corp. vs CA & Steelweld Corp of the Phils, Inc. G.R. No.
96160 June 17,1992
3 Bataan Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Inc. vs. the CA and State Investment House,
Inc. G.R. 93048, March 3, 1994
4 Atrium Management Corp. vs CA, et al., G.R. No. 109491, Feb. 28, 2001
5 Cely Yang vs CA, et. Al., G.R. No. 138074, August 15, 2003

LIABILITIES OF PARTIES
1 Republic Planters Bank vs CA, 216 SCRA 730, 1992
2 Myron C. Papa vs. A.U. Valencia & Co., Inc. et al. G.R. No. 105188, Jan.23,
1998
3 BPI vs Reynald R. Suarez, G.R. 167750 March 15, 2010
4 Ass. Bank and Condrado Cruz vs CA & Merle V. Reyes (Melissas RTW) G.R.
No. 89802, May 7, 1992

PRESENTMENT FOR PAYMENT


1 Westmont Bank (form. Ass. Banking Corp) vs.Eugene Ong, G.R. No. 132560
Jan. 30, 2002
2 Maria Tuazon vs Heirs of Bartolome Ramos, 463 SCRA 408, (2005)
3 Allied Banking Corp. vs Bank of the Phil Islds. G.R. 188363, February 27, 2013
4 Intl Corporate Bank vsGueco, 351 SCRA 516 (2001)

NOTICE OF DISHONOR
1 Jaime Dico vs CA & People G.R. NO. 141669 February 28,2005
2 Lao vs CA G.R. NO. 119178 June 20, 1997
3 Ofelia Marigomen vs People G.R. No. 153451, May 26, 2005
4 Great Asian Sales Center Corp. and Tan Chong lin vs CA & Bancasia Finance
and Investment Corp. G.R. No. 105774 April 25, 2002
5 Eliza T. Tan vs. People G.R. No. 141466 January 19, 2001
6 James Svendsen vs People G.R. No. 175381 February 26,2008

DISCHARGE OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT


1 Cebu Intl Finance Corp. vs CA 316 SCRA 488 (1999)
2 Anamer Salazar vs. JY Brothers Marketing Corp. G.R. No. 171998 October 20,
2010

MATERIAL ALTERATION
1 The Intl Corporate Bank Inc.vs CA &PNB G.R. No. 129910 September 5, 2006
2 Metrobank vs Renato D. Cabilzo G.R. No. 145569 December 6,2006

ACCEPTANCE
1 Prudential Bank vs. IAC, Philippine Rayon Mills Inc. and Anacleto R. Chi G.R.
No. 74886, December 8, 1992
2 PNB vs CA and PCIB G.R. No. L-26001, October 29, 1968

PROMISSORY NOTE
1 PNB vs Conception Mining Co. Inc et al. G.R. No. L-16969, July 31, 1962
2 Perta Compania De Seguros Inc. vs CA & Sps Lim G.R. No. 96452 May 7, 1992
3 Jose I. Poce de leon vs Rehabilitation Finance Corp. G.R. No. L-24571,
December 18, 1970
4 People vs Martin L. Romero and Ernesto C Rodriguez G.R. NO. 112985, April
21, 1999
5 Astro Electronics Corp and Peter Roxans vs Phil. Export and Foreign Loan
Guarantee Corporation. G.R. No. 136729, September 23, 2003

CHECKS
1 State Investment House vs IAC 175 SCRA 310 (1989)
2 People vs Nitafan G.R. NO. 75954 October 22, 1992
3 Tan vs CA G.R. No. 108555, December 20, 1994
4 Teddy G Pabugais vs Dave Sahjiwani G.R. No. 156846, February 23, 2004
5 Far East Bank & Trust Co. vs Diaz Realty Inc. G.R. NO 138588 August 23, 2001
6 Intl Corporate Bank vs Sps. Gueco G.R. No. 14968, February 12, 2001
7 Security Bank & Trust Co. vs Rizal Commercial Banking Corp G.R. No. 170984,
January 30, 2009
8 Equitable PCI Bank vs Tan, G.R. 165339, August 23, 2010

Additional Cases: Nego


LETTERS OF CREDIT
1 BPI vs Dereny Fabric Ind. Inc 35 SCRA 253 (1970)
2 PVTA vs Delos Angelos 164 SCRA 543 (1988)
3 IBAA vs IAC 167 SCRA 450 (1988)
4 Feati Bank vs CA 196 SCRA 576 (1991)
5 Prudential Bank vs IAC 216 SCRA 257 (1992)
6 BA vs CA 228 SCRA 357 (1993)
7 Reliance Commodities vs Daewoo 228 SCRA 545 (1993)
8 Rodssen Inc vs FEBTC 357 SCRA 618 (2001)
9 ABAD vs CA 181 SCRA 191 (1990)
10 MWSS vs Hon. Dawang 432 SCRA 559 (2004)
11 Transfield Inc. vs Luzon hydro 443 SCRA 307 (2004)
12 Bank of Commerce vs Serrano 451 SCRA 484 (2005)
13 Land Bank vs Monets Export 453 SCRA 173 (2005)

TRUST RECEIPT
1 Ong vs CA 124 SCRA 578 (1983)
2 Vintola vs IBAA 150 SCRA 140 (1987)
3 Ramos vs CA 153 SCRA 276 (1987)
4 Allied Bank vs Ordoez 192 SCRA 246 (1990)
5 PND vs Pineda 197 SCRA 1 (1991)
6 People vs Nitafan 207 SCRA 726 (1992)
7 Prudential Bank vs NLRC 251 SCRA 421 (1995)
8 Metrobank vs Tonda 338 SCRA 254 (2000)
9 Colinares vs CA 339 SCRA 609 (2000)
10 PBCOM vs CA 352 SCRA 616 (2001)
11 South City Homes vs BA Finance 371 SCRA 603 (2001)
12 Lee vs CA 375 SCRA 579 (2000)
13 Sarmiento vs CA 394 SCRA 315 (2002)
14 Ong vs CA 401 SCRA 649 (2003)
15 LANDL and Co. vs Metrobank 435 SCRA 639 (2004)
16 Rosario Textile vs Home Bankers 462 SCRA 88 (2005)
17 TUpaz vs CA 475 SCRA 398 (2005)
18 DBP vs Prudential Bank 475 SCRA 623 (2006)
19 Ching vs Sec. of Justice 481 SCRA 609 (2006)

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW


1 PAL vs CA 181 SCRA 557 (1990)
2 Fortunado vs CA 196 SCRA 26 (1991)
3 New Pacific Timber vs. Seeres 101 SCRA 686 (1980) ANID
4 Tibaja vs CA 223 SCRA 163 (1993)
5 Cebu vs CA316 SCRA 488 (1999)
6 FEBTC vs Diaz Realty 363 SCRA 596 (2001)
7 PNB vs Rodriguez 566 SCRA 513 (2008)