You are on page 1of 13

Digest Compilation 5.

b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

 The following day, Roxas returned to BPI to encash the cashier’s

check but it was dishonored (reason: Marissa’s account was closed
Table of Contents on that date)
BPI v Roxas ............................................................................................... 1  Despite insistence, BPI officers refused to encash the check.
Nota Sapiera v CA ..................................................................................... 1
Eventually, a complaint was filed. BPI claimed that it issued the check
Metrobank v PBCOM ................................................................................ 2
BPI v CA ..................................................................................................... 3 by mistake in good faith; that its dishonor was due to lack of
Coolidge V Payson ................................................................................... 5 consideration and that Roxas’ remedy was to sue Rodrigo Cawili who
Republic V PNB ......................................................................................... 5 purchased the check. BPI filed a third party complaint against spouses
PAL V CA ................................................................................................... 6 Cawili.
Fortunado V CA......................................................................................... 7  RTC rendered judgment in favor of Roxas and ordered BPI to pay face
Mesina V IAC ............................................................................................. 7
value of the cashier’s check, among others. As to the third party
New Pacific Timber V Seneris ................................................................. 7
Wachtel V Rosen ....................................................................................... 7 complaint, spouses Cawili were ordered to indemnify BPI.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Malolos Inc V IAC ................................ 7  CA affirmed RTC judgment. Hence this petition.
Bulliet V Allegheny Trust Co. .................................................................. 7
Sutter V Security Trust Co. ...................................................................... 8 ISSUE/HELD/RATIO: W/N BPI is liable to Roxas for the amount of the
PNB V Picornell ......................................................................................... 9 cashier’s check. Yes.
Banco Atlantico V Auditor General ....................................................... 10 In International Corporate Bank v. Spouses Gueco, Court held that a cashier’s
McCornack V Central State Bank .......................................................... 10 check is really the bank’s own check and may be treated as a promissory note
Adolph Ramish , Inc V Woodruff ........................................................... 11 with the bank as the maker. The check becomes the primary obligation of the
Wachovia Bank V Crafton ...................................................................... 12 bank which issues it and constitutes a written promise to pay upon demand.
Horowitz V Wollowitz .............................................................................. 12 Petitioner bank became liable to respondent from the moment it issued the
cashier’s check. The mere issuance of a cashier’s check is considered
acceptance thereof. Having been accepted by respondent, subject to no
condition whatsoever, petitioner should have paid the same upon presentment
BPI v Roxas
by the former.
Side note: As to the issue of w/n Roxas was a HIDC, this was answered by the
BPI v Roxas
Court in the affirmative. Contention of petitioner that the element of value is
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.│ October 15, 2007
not present lacks merit. The fact that it was Rodrigo who purchased the
cashier’s check from petitioner will not affect respondent’s status as a holder
for value since the check was delivered to him as payment for the vegetable
 Respondent Roxas sold vegetable oil to Spouses Cawili. As payment, oil he sold to spouses Cawili.
spouses Cawili issued a personal check (in the amount of
Nota Sapiera v CA
 Respondent tried to encash the check but it was dishonored by the
Nota Sapiera - indorser v. CA & Sua - indorsee (1999)
drawee bank. Spouses assured Roxas that they would replace the
bounced check with a cashier’s check from petitioner BPI. Facts:
 Roxas and Rodrigo Cawili went to BPI where the branch manager Saperia was a sari-sari store owner who purchased grocery items from Sua,
personally attended to them. A cashier’s check was drawn against the and paid for them with checks issued by Arturo de Guzman. These checks
account of Marissa Cawili, payable to Roxas and was handed to the were signed at the back by Saperia. Upon presentment, these were
dishonored on the ground Account Closed. Sua informed both de Guzman
Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

and Saperia about the dishonor but both failed to pay. Although Saperia was
acquitted of estafa (due to prosecution’s failure to Metrobank v PBCOM
prove conspiracy with de Guzman), she was made liable for the value of the
Metrobank v PBCOM
Issue: whether petitioner is liable to pay civil indemnity to private respondent
after the trial court had acquitted her of the criminal charge Facts:
 Pipe Master Corp. entered into a check discounting agreement with
Held: Saperia was still liable. Filipinas Orient
 It is undisputed that the four (4) checks issued by de Guzman were  Pipe Master issued a Board Resolution authorizing Yu Kio in his
signed by petitioner at the back without any indication as to how she capacity as President and/or Tan Juan Lim in his capacity as Vice-
should be bound thereby and, therefore, she is deemed to be an indorser President to execute, indorse make, sign, deliver or negotiate
thereof. The NIL clearly provides — instruments, documents, and such other papers necessary in
SECTION 17. Construction where instrument is ambiguous. — Where connection with any transaction coursed through Filipinas Orient for
the language of the instrument is ambiguous, or there are admissions and in behalf of the corporation.
therein, the following rules of construction apply: . . . (f) Where a  Under the check discounting agreement between Pipe Master and
signature is so placed upon the instrument that it is not clear in what Filipinas Orient, Yu Kio sold to Filipinas Orient 4 Metro Bank checks
capacity the person making the same intended to sign, he is deemed an amounting to P1M. In exchange, Filipinas Orient (drawer) issued to
indorser. . . Yu Kio 4 PBCom (drawee) crossed checks amounting to P964,
SECTION 63. When person deemed indorser. — A person placing his 303.62, payable to Pipe Master (payee) with the statement “for
signature upon an instrument otherwise than as maker, drawer or payee’s account only.”
acceptor, is deemed to be an indorser unless he clearly indicates by  Yu Kio indorsed and deposited the 4 checks to his personal account.
appropriate words his intention to be bound in some other capacity. 3 of the checks were deposited in his Metro Bank account and 1
SECTION 66. Liability of general indorser. — Every indorser who check was deposited in his Solid Bank personal account. (Collecting
indorses without qualification, warrants to all subsequent holders in due agents of Yu Kio: Metro Bank and Solid Bank) PBCom paid Metro
course: (a) The matters and things mentioned in subdivisions (a), (b) and Bank and Solid Bank the value of the checks. In turn, Metro Bank
(c) of the next preceding section; and (b) That the instrument is, at the and Solid Bank credited the value of the checks to Yu Kio’s personal
time of the indorsement, valid and subsisting; account.
 When Filipinas Orient presented the 4 Metro Bank checks amounting
And, in addition, he engages that, on due presentment, it shall be to P1M it received from Yu Kio, they were dishonored by Metro Bank.
accepted or paid or both, as the case may be, according to its tenor, and Pipe Master, the drawer, refused to pay the amounts of the checks
that if it be dishonored and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be claiming that it never received the proceeds of the PBCom checks as
duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder or to any they were delivered and paid to the wrong party, Yu Kio, who was
subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it. not the named payee.
 Filipinas Orient filed a complaint for a sum of money against Pipe
 The dismissal of the criminal cases against petitioner did not erase her Master, Tan Juan Lian who executed a continuing guaranty IFO
civil liability since the dismissal was due to insufficiency of evidence and Filipinas Orient instruments for which Pipe Master may become
not from a declaration from the court that the fact from which the civil liable, and/or PBCom.
action might arise did not exist. An accused acquitted of estafa may
nevertheless be held civilly liable where the facts established by the Issue: W/N Metro Bank and Solid Bank are liable to Filipinas Orient for
evidence so warrant. The accused should be adjudged liable for the accepting the PBCom crossed checks payable to Pipe Master. YES
unpaid value of the checks signed by her in favor of the complainant.
Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

It is the collecting bank which is bound to scrutinize the check and to know its signed blank withdrawal slip, with the understanding that as soon as the
depositors before it can make the clearing indorsement, “all prior check is cleared, both of them would go to the bank to withdraw the
indorsements and/or lack of indorsement guaranteed.” The law imposes on amount.
the collecting bank the duty to diligently scrutinize the checks deposited with  Using the blank withdrawal slip given by private respondent to Chan, one
it for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. Gayon Jr. was able to withdraw the amount of $2,541.67 from the said
FCDU Account. Notably, the withdrawal slip shows that the amount was
The Court previously held that the collecting bank or last indorser generally payable to Ramon A. de Guzman and Agnes C. de Guzman and was
suffers the loss because it had the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all duly initialed by the branch assistant manager.
prior indorsements and is privy to the depositor who negotiates the check. In  Petitioner received communication from the Wells Fargo Bank
Jai-alai Corp. of the Philippines v. BPI, the Court ruled that one who accepts International of New York that the said check deposited by private
and encashes a check from an individual knowing that the payee is a respondent was a counterfeit check because it was "not of the type or
corporation does so at his own peril. style of checks issued by Continental Bank International."
 For failure of private respondent to return the amount, Petitioner filed a
In this case, Metro Bank and Solid Bank are liable to Filipinas Orient for their complaint against private respondent.
negligence in accepting the checks and allowing the transaction to push  Private respondent: Admitted that he indeed signed a "blank"
through and disregarding established banking rules and procedures. They withdrawal slip with the understanding that the amount deposited would
accommodated Yu Kio being a valued client. They stamped at the back of be withdrawn only after the check in question has been cleared. He
the checks their clearing indorsements. In doing so, they became general likewise alleged that he instructed the party to whom he issued the
indorsers. Under Sec. 66 of the NIL, an endorser warrants “that the signed blank withdrawal slip to return it to him after the bank drafts
instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; that he has a clearance so that he could lend that party his passbook for the purpose
good title to it; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and that the of withdrawing the amount. However, without his knowledge, said party
instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting.” was able to withdraw the amount through collusion with one of petitioners
employees. Private respondent added that he had "given the Plaintiff fifty
BPI v CA one (51) days with which to clear the bank draft in question." Petitioner
should have disallowed the withdrawal because his passbook was not
presented. He claimed that petitioner had no one to blame except itself
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. CA and BENJAMIN "for being grossly negligent;" in fact, it had allegedly admitted having paid
C. NAPIZA, respondents the amount in the check "by mistake" x x x "if not altogether due to
collusion and/or bad faith on the part of (its) employees."
February 29, 2000|Ynares-Santiago|RSJ  Lower court: dismissed the complaint. It held that petitioner could not
hold private respondent liable based on the checks face value alone. To
Facts: so hold him liable "would render inutile the requirement of clearance from
the drawee bank before the value of a particular foreign check or draft
 On September 3, 1987, private respondent deposited in his Foreign can be credited to the account of a depositor making such deposit." It
Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) Savings Account in petitioner banks was incumbent upon the petitioner to credit the value of the check in
Buendia Branch a Continental Bank Managers Check payable to "cash" question to the account of the private respondent only upon receipt of the
in the amount of $2,500.00 and duly endorsed by private respondent on notice of final payment and should not have authorized the withdrawal
its dorsal side. from the latters account of the value or proceeds of the check." Having
 The check belonged to a certain Henry Chan who went to the office of admitted that it committed a "mistake" in not waiting for the clearance of
private respondent and requested him to deposit the check in his dollar the check before authorizing the withdrawal of its value or proceeds,
account by way of accommodation and for the purpose of clearing the petitioner should suffer the resultant loss.
same. Private respondent acceded, and agreed to deliver to Chan a  CA: affirmed lower court. It held that petitioner committed "clear gross
negligence" in allowing Gayon Jr. to withdraw the money without
Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

presenting private respondents passbook and, before the check was personnel should have been duly warned that Gayon, who was also
cleared and in crediting the amount indicated therein in private employed in petitioners Buendia branch, was not the proper payee of the
respondents account. proceeds of the check. Otherwise, either Ramon or Agnes de Guzman
should have issued another authority to Gayon for such withdrawal. Of
Issue/Held: course, at the dorsal side of the withdrawal slip is an "authority to withdraw"
naming Gayon the person who can withdraw the amount indicated in the
1.......WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT NAPIZA IS LIABLE UNDER HIS check. Private respondent does not deny having signed such authority.
However, considering petitioners clear admission that the withdrawal slip was
a blank one except for private respondents signature, the unavoidable
conclusion is that the typewritten name of "Ruben C. Gayon, Jr." was
Petitioner claims that private respondent, having affixed his signature at the intercalated and thereafter it was signed by Gayon or whoever was allowed
dorsal side of the check, should be liable for the amount stated therein in by petitioner to withdraw the amount. Under these facts, there could not have
accordance with Sec. 66. of the NIL. been a principal-agent relationship between private respondent and Gayon
so as to render the former liable for the amount withdrawn.
Section 65, on the other hand, provides for the following warranties of a
person negotiating an instrument by delivery or by qualified indorsement: (a) 3.......WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS GROSSLY NEGLIGENT IN
that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; (b) ALLOWING THE WITHDRAWAL. (YES)
that he has a good title to it, and (c) that all prior parties had capacity to
Under the rules appearing on private respondent’s passbook, to be able to
withdraw from the savings account deposit under the Philippine foreign
Ordinarily private respondent may be held liable as an indorser of the check currency deposit system, two requisites must be presented to petitioner bank
or even as an accommodation party. However, to hold private respondent by the person withdrawing an amount: (a) a duly filled-up withdrawal slip, and
liable for the amount of the check he deposited by the strict application of the (b) the depositors passbook.
law would result in an injustice. 'The interest of justice thus demands looking
into the events that led to the encashment of the check.
As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, in depositing the check in his
name, private respondent did not become the outright owner of the amount
The propriety of the withdrawal should be gauged by compliance with the stated therein. By depositing the check with petitioner, private respondent
rules thereon that both petitioner bank and its depositors are duty-bound to was, in a way, merely designating petitioner as the collecting bank. This is in
observe. consonance with the rule that a negotiable instrument, such as a check,
whether a managers check or ordinary check, is not legal tender. As such,
2.......WHETHER OR NOT A CONTRACT OF AGENCY WAS CREATED after receiving the deposit, under its own rules, petitioner shall credit the
BETWEEN RESPONDENT NAPIZA AND RUBEN GAYON. (NO) amount in private respondents account or infuse value thereon only after the
drawee bank shall have paid the amount of the check or the check has been
Petitioner alleged that had private respondent indicated therein the person cleared for deposit. Again, this is in accordance with ordinary banking
authorized to receive the money, then Ruben Gayon, Jr. could not have practices and with this Courts pronouncement that "the collecting bank or last
withdrawn any amount. Petitioner contends that "(i)n failing to do so (i.e., endorser generally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain the
naming his authorized agent), he practically authorized any possessor genuineness of all prior endorsements considering that the act of presenting
thereof to write any amount and to collect the same..” the check for payment to the drawee is an assertion that the party making the
presentment has done its duty to ascertain the genuineness of the
Such contention would have been valid if not for the fact that the withdrawal endorsements." The rule finds more meaning in this case where the check
slip itself indicates a special instruction that the amount is payable to "Ramon involved is drawn on a foreign bank and therefore collection is more difficult
A. de Guzman &/or Agnes C. de Guzman." Such being the case, petitioners
Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

than when the drawee bank is a local one even though the check in question Coolidge wrote to its friend, William, who was to determine whether the draft
is a manager’s check.s was to be honored. William replied, approving the bond.

In the case at bar, petitioner, in allowing the withdrawal of private • Cornthwaithe called on William to inquire whether he had satisfied
respondents deposit, failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a Coolidge respecting the bond. Williams stated the substance of the letter he
family. It is apparent that petitioner’s personnel allowed the withdrawal of an had written, and read to him a part of it. Payson also called on him to make
amount bigger than the original deposit of $750.00 and the value of the the same inquiry, to whom he gave the same information and also read the
check deposited in the amount of $2,500.00 although they had not yet letter he had written.
received notice from the clearing bank in the United States on whether or not
the check was funded. Reyes contention that after the lapse of the 35-day • 2 days later, a bill was drawn by Cornthwaite and paid to Payson in
period the amount of a deposited check could be withdrawn even in the part of the protested bill of $2, was presented to Coolidge, who refused
absence of a clearance thereon, otherwise it could take a long time before a to accept it.
depositor could make a withdrawal, is untenable. Said practice amounts to a
disregard of the clearance requirement of the banking system. ISSUE
WON Coolidge is deemed to have accepted the bill, hence liable to Payson
While it is true that private respondents having signed a blank withdrawal slip
set in motion the events that resulted in the withdrawal and encashment of
• A promise to accept a bill amounts to an acceptance to a person who
the counterfeit check, the negligence of petitioners personnel was the
has taken it on the credit of that promise, although the promise was made
proximate cause of the loss that petitioner sustained. The proximate cause of
before the existence of the bill, and although it is drawn in favor of a person
the withdrawal and eventual loss of the amount of $2,500.00 on petitioner’s
part was its personnel’s negligence in allowing such withdrawal in disregard who takes it for a pre-existing debt
of its own rules and the clearing requirement in the banking system. In so
• Upon a review of several cases, the court holds that a letter written
doing, petitioner assumed the risk of incurring a loss on account of a forged
within a reasonable time before or after the bill of exchange, describing it in
or counterfeit foreign check and hence, it should suffer the resulting damage.
terms not to be mistaken, and promising to accept it, is if shown to the
person who afterwards takes the bill on the credit of the letter, a virtual
Affirmed. acceptance binding the person who makes the promise.

Coolidge V Payson

FACTS Republic V PNB

DRAWER: Cornhwaite & Cary Republic of the Philippines v. PNB (1961)
DRAWEE: Collidge & Co. (defendant) Facts:
PAYEE: John Randall  The Republic filed a complaint for escheat of certain unclaimed bank
INDORSEE: Payson & Co. (plaintiff) deposit balances against several banks.
o Under Act 3936, “unclaimed balances” include credits,
• Coolidge held proceeds of the cargo of the Hiram claimed by deposits of money, bullion, security and other evidence of
Cornthwaite. Corthwaite executed bonds of indembity an executed srolls and indebtedness of any kind of persons not heard from for 10
drew on them for $2,700, payable to Randall, and endorsed by him to years or more.
Payson. Coolidge wrote to Corthwaite stating that, since there is no seal to  PNB wanted to exclude from the escheat proceedings cashier’s or
any of the signatures, it is necessary to ascertain the legality of the scrolls. manager’s checks, demand drafts and telegraphic transfer payment

Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

 Lower court ruled cashier’s check or manager’s checks and demand - The order and writ of execution were subsequently issued. The writ
drafts cannot be excluded, only the telegraphic transfer payment was referred to one Deputy Sheriff Emilio Reyes.
orders. - Four months after, Tan moved for the issuance of an alias writ of
o Upon an MR, demand drafts may be excluded, not subject to execution stating that the judgment remained unsatisfied. PAL
escheat opposed this motion stating that it had already fully paid its obligation
through Reyes.
Issue: WoN demand drafts (NO) and telegraphic orders (YES) come within - The CA denied the motion for being premature and ordered Reyes to
the purview of “credits”, hence may be subject to escheat
appear with his return and explain his failure to surrender the amounts
Held: PNB is liable for the cashier’s checks and manager’s checks but is not paid to him. This order could not be served, however, because Reyes
liable for the demand draft. disappeared.
 Demand drafts are bills of exchange payable on demand. - Subsequently, an alias writ was issued by the CFI. PAL filed a motion
o A bill of exchange in NIL does not constitute an assignment to quash the alias writ stating that no return of the writ was made and
of funds and the drawee is not liable on it unless he accepts that the judgment debt had already been fully satisfied as evidence by
it. the cash vouchers signed and receipted by Reyes.
o Therefore, since the drafts have not been presented either
for acceptance or for payment, PNB cannot be liable for it. Issue: W/N the payment made by checks to Reyes extinguished the judgment
 However, PNB is liable for the cashier’s checks and manager’s debt? NO
checks. Ratio:
o PNB is primarily liable for them since they may be treated as - The SC held that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the
a promissory note considering the fact that PNB is both the payment to the absconding sheriff by check in his name did not
drawer and the drawee for these items. operate as a satisfaction of the judgment debt.
o Substantial equivalent of a certified check - In general, a payment, in order to be effective to discharge an
 Telegraphic transfer payment orders are transactions for the obligation, must be made to the proper person. Under ordinary
telegraphic or cable transfer. circumstances, payment by the judgment debtor in the case at bar, to
o The agreement to remit creates a contractual obligation and the sheriff should be valid payment to extinguish the judgment debt.
has been termed a purchase and sale transaction. - However, the SC held that there are circumstances which compel a
o Absurd to say that the drawer bank is still the owner of the different conclusion. The payment made by PAL to the absconding
telegraphic orders. sheriff WAS NOT in cash or legal tender but in CHECKS. The checks
o In this case, amounts in the telegraphic orders appear in the were not payable to Tan or Able Printing Press but to Reyes.
names of the payees. The drawer bank wsd already paid
o NCC 1249 – xxx the delivery of promissory notes payable to
such amount. Should payee decide to have their money
order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile documents shall
remain in the bank, it cannot claim ownership over the
telegraphic payment orders. produce the effect of payment only when they have been
cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have
PAL V CA been impaired. Xxx
- In the absence of an agreement, payment means the discharge of a
debt or obligation in money and unless so agreed, a debtor has no
- Respondent Tan filed a complaint for damages against petitioner PAL rights to substitute something in lieu of cash as medium of payment of
where PAL was ordered by the CFI to pay Tan a sum of money. This his debt. Consequently, a public officer has no authority to accept
was affirmed by the CA. The decision has become final and executory. anything other than money in payment of an obligation under a
The records were remanded to the CFI for execution of judgment. judgment being executed. Since a negotiable instrument is only a

Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

substitute for money and is not money, the delivery of such an holder in due course cannot enforce such check against the issuing bank
instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. which dishonors the same.
- Having failed to employ the proper safeguards to protect itself, the
judgment debtor whose act made possible loss had but itself to blame. **A person who became the holder of a cashier's check as endorsed by the
person who stole it and who refused to say how and why it was passed to
him is not a holder in due course.
Fortunado V CA
New Pacific Timber V Seneris
Mesina V IAC
Mesina vs. IAC Wachtel V Rosen
LIABILITY OF PARTIES>5. Checks> b.Certification and its effects
FACTS: Wachtel v Rosen
Jose Go purchased from Associated Bank a cashier's check for  Wachtel (drawer) gave to Rosen (payee) his check drawn on National
P800,000.00. Unfortunately, he left said check on the top of the desk of the Park Bank (drawee)
bank manager when he left the bank. The bank manager entrusted the check
for safekeeping to a bank official, a certain Albert Uy. While Uy went to the  Rosen presented the check for certification; certification was refused.
men's room, the check was stolen by his visitor in the person of Alexander
Lim. Upon discovering that the check was lost, Jose Go accomplished a ISSUE/HELD/RATIO: W/N the refusal by a drawee bank to certify a check at
"STOP PAYMENT" order. Two days later, Associated Bank received the lost the request of the holder amounts to dishonor (the same as the refusal of
check for clearing from Prudential Bank. After dishonoring the same check acceptance of a bill of exchange other than a check) so that the holder may
twice, Associated Bank received summons and copy of a complaint for sue the drawer as if the check had been presented for payment and payment
damages of Marcelo Mesina who was in possession of the lost check and is had been refused. No.
demanding payment. Petitioner claims that a cashier's check cannot be The general rule is that a check is of right presentable only for payment and
countermanded in the hands of a holder in due course. that the bank is under no obligation to certify, although it may do so.
Certification differs in effect from mere acceptance of bills other than checks,
ISSUE: in that it is not an added obligation but a substitute obligation. Although section
3231 provides that “certification is equivalent to acceptance,” the meaning is
Whether or not petitioner can collect on the stolen check on the ground that merely that certification is synonym of acceptance. It does not mean that the
he is a holder in due course. same effect is to be given to certification as is given to the acceptance of an
ordinary bill of exchange.

No. Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he is a holder in due Roman Catholic Archbishop of Malolos Inc V IAC
course and for consideration or value as shown by the established facts of
the case. Admittedly, petitioner became the holder of the cashier's check as Bulliet V Allegheny Trust Co.
endorsed by Alexander Lim who stole the check. He refused to say how and
Bulliet v Allegheny Trust Co
why it was passed to him. He had therefore notice of the defect of his title
over the check from the start. The holder of a cashier's check who is not a

Section 323 of NIL: Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn the
certification is equivalent to an acceptance.
Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

Facts  Appellant delivered the certified check to his wife in consideration of a

 C.C. Mitchell drew a check on Respondent Allegheny Trust for certain agreement between them concerning a separation. In such
$5,000 to the order of Grove-McNair, dated Feb. 10 1919 agreement the wife agreed, amongst other things, not to remove certain
o Mitchell was negotiating for oil property furniture from appellant's home. After delivery of the check, the wife
o Grove-McNair was his agent violated the agreement.
 A memorandum agreement of sale was entered into by Mitchell  Appellant discussed the matter with respondent’s president and
and V.J. Bullet whereby $5,000 would be placed in escrow while
treasurer, and signed and delivered to the respondent a request, in
awaiting the payment of the remainder
writing, to stop payment on the check.
o Provision: if Mitchell fails to pay the remainder, the
escrow is forfeited to the seller  Subsequently to his signing the stop-payment request, his wife presented
 Mitchell failed to make payments the check to respondent for payment, and payment was refused by it
 Mitchell ordered a stop payment of the check because payment had been stopped. She was told that payment of the
 Thus, Allegheny Trust refused to honor the check and returned check should be deferred for a few days, and that Mrs. Sutter was
it, writing on the back of the check: “on account of the therefore requested to postpone presentation of the check until Mr.
indorsements of same, and also because Mr. Mitchell has Sutter could be seen.
requested me to withhold payment until some matters in  Mrs. Sutter went to her brother in Philadelphia, endorsed the check over
connection with the deal are cleared up.” to him. Her brother deposited it in his bank in that city. The check was
presented to respondent for payment through the Federal Reserve Bank
Issue/Holding/Ratio of Philadelphia, and payment refused and check protested on the ground
 WON the real defense that plaintiff had no record title to the oil of "payment stopped."
property (want of consideration) was valid? NO.
 The Union National Bank of Philadelphia told appellant that the check
o An acceptor admits everything essential to the validity of
was in the hands of an innocent third person, for value, and that unless
the bill, and on this ground he cannot, for example, even
set up the defense of want of consideration between he indemnified respondent the check would be paid. Appellant declined
drawer and payee. to indemnify respondent, and on April 6th the check was again presented
o The reply of Allegheny that it would honor the check for payment, and was paid.
amounted to certification of the bank, thus making it  Suit was then instituted by appellant against the respondent for
liable. $1,034.41.
o Such certification at the request of the holder created a
new obligation on the part of the bank to that holder. It Issue: Whether the the bank, by reason of its certification, would have been
passed the amount of the check to the credit of the justified in making payment to Mrs. Sutter, the payee, upon proper
holder, who is thereafter a depositor to that amount. presentation of the check by her, notwithstanding the service of the notice to
stop payment by her husband, the maker, and a disclosure by him to the
officers of the bank of the condition upon which the check was obtained by
Mrs. Sutter. (YES)
Sutter V Security Trust Co.
Sutter v Security Trust Co. (1924) - RSJ
 A drawer of a check, which has been certified at his request before
delivery, may recall the same and require the certifying bank to refuse
 Appellant had a checking account with respondent, and he, having a
payment to the payee named therein if such payee is not a bona fide
balance therein to his credit of $1,034.41, drew a check thereon to the
holder, for value, but has obtained the check by fraud perpetrated by him
order of his wife for $1,000, and on the same date procured the
upon the maker. And further, that upon suit by the payee named in the
certification thereof by respondent.
check against the certifying bank, upon its refusal to pay, after notice

Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

from the drawer to stop payment, for reasons showing the payee not to  Said BOE was for the amount obtained by Picornell for the purchase
be a bona fide holder thereof, for value, the bank can urge and have the of bales of tobacco in Cebu by the instructions of his principal,
benefit of any defense that the drawer could have against such payee, Hyndman, Tavera & Ventura.
establishing that such payee obtained the instrument, or any signature  This instrument, together with the invoice and bill of lading of the
thereto, by fraud, duress or force and fear, or other unlawful means, or tobacco, were delivered to the National Bank with the understanding
for an illegal consideration; and also that the right of the maker of a that the bank should not deliver them to Hyndman, Tavera & Ventura
check, certified at his request before delivery, is the same against an except upon payment of the bill.
endorsee holder, who is not a holder, in due course, as is his right to stop  The central office of PNB in Manila received the bill and the aforesaid
documents annexed thereto; and presented the bill to Hyndman,
payment against the payee who is not a bona fide holder, for value. Such
Tavera & Ventura, who accepted it.
rule, however, has no application to a certified check held by a payee
 Upon inspection by Hyndman, Tavera & Ventura of the tobacco, it
who is a bona fide holder, for value, nor to a holder in due course,
wrote to Picornell, notifying him that of the tobacco received, there
although certified at the request of the drawer before delivery, nor where was a certain portion which was of no use and was damaged.
the check, after delivery, is certified at the request of the payee or holder.  Thereafter, Hyndman, Tavera & Ventura informed the plaintiff that it
 There is nothing to justify a holding that Mrs. Sutter, the payee, procured refused to pay the BOE because of the noncompliance of the drawer
the check by any fraud perpetrated by her upon her husband. For this Picornell.
reason we conclude that the bank would have been justified in making  Hence the bank brought this instant action.
payment of the check to Mrs. Sutter, upon presentation thereof by her. If
the bank was not justified in making payment to Mrs. Sutter, the payee Issue: Whether bank could recover on the drawee Hyndman, Tavera &
named in the check, then it was not justified in making payment to Mr. Ventura under the subject BOE. YES
Mack (brother), the endorsee, who, we have found, under the facts here
presented, was not a holder in due course, and the stop-payment notice HELD:
of the maker, under such conditions, would operate in favor of the maker  Partial want of consideration, if it was, does not exist with respect to
the bank which paid to Picornell the full value of said bill of
against him as such holder, and would place the bank in a position where
it was not justified in making payment to such an endorsee holder.
 The bank was a holder in due course, and was such for value full
 As the bank was, under the facts presented, justified and legally called and complete. The Hyndman, Tavera & Ventura company cannot
upon to make payment to Mrs. Sutter, upon presentation and demand, escape liability in view of section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments
as against the notice of the maker of the check to stop payment, its Law.
obligation, under the facts, was likewise to make payment to the  As to Picornell, he warranted, as drawer of the bill, that it would be
endorsee holder, Mr. Mack. accepted upon proper presentment and paid in due course, and as it
was not paid, he became liable to the payment of its value to the
Affirmed. holder thereof, which is the plaintiff bank.
 The fact that the tobacco was or was not of inferior quality does not
PNB V Picornell affect the responsibility of Picornell, because while it may have an
PNB V. PICORNELL, 1922 effect upon the contract between him and the firm of Hyndman,
Tavera, Ventura, yet it cannot have upon the responsibility of both to
Facts: the bank, upon the bill drawn and accepted as above stated.
 A bill of exchange was drawn by Picornell in favor of PNB, plaintiff,  The drawee, the Hyndman, Tavera & Ventura company, or its
against the firm of Hyndman, Tavera & Ventura, now dissolved, its successors, J. Pardo de Tavera, accepted the bill and is primarily
only successor being the defendant Joaquin Pardo de Tavera. liable for the value of the negotiable instrument, while the drawer
Picornell, is secondarily liable. However, no question has been

Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

raised about this aspect of the responsibility of the defendants. The Banco Atlantico filed money claims against the Auditor General, who denied
appellants are liable to PNB for the value of the bill of exchange. the claims because (some additional facts here):

Banco Atlantico V Auditor General 1. BA did not clear the checks when it should have as that is the
Banco Atlantico v. Auditor General (Fernandez, 1978) standard practice esp. with checks involving large amounts (BA did
this because of Ms Boncan’s “very special relations” with the
Case: appeal from Auditor General’s decision disallowing payment claims by employees and chiefs of BA)
Banco Atlantico against the Philippine Embassy in Madrid. 2. Basing the claim under NIL Section 61 – the basis is out of context.
Must interpret with other provisions in NIL. BA was not a holder in
Banco Atlantico (BA) is a bank in Madrid. due course – which is a requirement to avail of Section 61.
3. Boncan altered the first and second checks (10K and 35K) by
The Checks: increasing the amounts. BA should suffer the loss because it
accommodated Boncan on these checks without clearing first.
$10,109.10 Check: (Paid by BA Oct 31, 1968 – original amount was 109.10 – 4. The 90K check was a demand note. There was a letter from Boncan
salary of Pace) that the check should not be presented for collection until a later
Check drawer – Ph embassy in Madrid, signed by Luis Gonzales the date. This letter should have put BA on guard that something was
ambassador and Virginia Boncan as Finance Officer. wrong with the check. It loudly proclaims “Take me at your risk”. So
Check drawee – PNB branch in New York USA (PNB-NY) BA is not a HIDC because it had knowledge of defect and infirmity of
Check payee - Azucena Pace the check. When BA honored it, it was grossly negligent.
Check indorser – Azucena Pace and Virginia Boncan
Check indorsee – Banco Atlantico (negotiated by Virginia Boncan). ISSUES:
1. WON there was forgery on the 3 checks to bar BA from collecting
$35,000.75 Check (Nov 2, 1968 – original amount was $75 – reimbursement against the Ph embassy? If there was, is the Ph Embassy precluded
of Boncan’s living quarters allowance) from setting up forgery or want of authority of Miss Boncan (YES,
Drawer – same NO)
Drawee – same 2. WON actual payment by BA without clearing first with PNB-NY was
Payee – Virginia Boncan an actual notice of defective title in the endorser thereof (or
Indorser/indorsee - Boncan/ Banco Atlantico assumption of risk by BA as to defeat collection) (YES).

$90,000 Check (Nov 5, 1968) Note: the court did not discuss thoroughly its ruling per issue. Instead of
Drawer – same material alteration, it based its decision on forgery.
Drawee – same
Payee – Virginia Boncan Yes, there was forgery (as discussed in the facts). The 3 checks were
Indorser/indorsee - Boncan/ Banco Atlantico fraudulently altered by Boncan as to their amounts and therefore wholly
inoperative (NIL 23). No right of payment against any party could have been
Banco Atlantico did not clear the check with the drawee (PNB-NY). When BA acquired by BA.
through its collecting bank presented the checks to PNB-NY, the latter
dishonored the checks because of a stop order by the Ph Embassy in Disposition: Auditor General’s decision denying BA’s claim is affirmed.
McCornack V Central State Bank
Notices were sent by the BA’s collecting bank to the indorser-payee
(Boncan) and the drawer (Ph embassy). MCCORNACK v CENTRAL STATE BANK

Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

FACTS: Plaintiffs, including Peter McCornack (I believe the other plaintiff is The drawee bank also cannot escape liability under Sec 9251 of NIL: “The
spouse), had money on deposit with Central State Bank. In July 1920, one drawer by drawing the instrument admits the existence of the payee and his
Halverson gained Peter’s confidence and represented to him that he then capacity to indorse, and engages that on due presentment the instrument
(Halverson) had a client (CR Kutsman) who wished to borrow money to be will be accepted or paid, or both, according to its tenor, and that if it be
secured by mortgage on land. McCornack consented and signed a check for dishonored, and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will
$1,005.50 payable to order of Kutsman which he delivered to Halverson for pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who may
Kutsman. Halverson delivered to McCornack a note purporting to be signed by be compelled to pay it.” This provision protects not the drawee bank but the
Kutsman and secured by mortgage on land, purporting to be signed by CR and holder or the compelled indorser.
Mabel Kutsman.
The provision that protects the drawee is Sec 9469, under which the drawee
Halveron indorsed the name CR Kutsman to his own name on the check and is relieved of the duty to ascertain the genuineness of the payee’s indorsement
deposited it in his own account. Check was paid on presentation to Central when the drawer KNOWS the payee is a fictitious person. Hence, if the drawer
State Bank and the amount was charged to plaintiffs’ account. This modus was did not know the payee to be fictitious, which is the case here, the drawer is
repeated several other times by Halverson against McCornack. NOT relieved of said duty.

In August 1920, Central State Bank delivered to plaintiffs a statement of their If a depositor has a right to draw a check payable to the order of a stranger
account with cancelled checks charged against it. No claim of error was made and who, for all the drawer knows, may be a fictitious person, and to rely upon
until 1924, when it was discovered that the note and mortgage were forged the bank to pay the check only on a genuine indorsement, and it is the duty of
instruments and no such person as CR Kutsman in fact existed and the land the bank to know at its peril before it pays the check that the indorsement of
belonged to others. Payments of interest were made by Halverson. Plaintiffs the payee is genuine, then it is the drawee bank that is negligent.
filed this case to recover the payments made by Central State Bank.
In short: A drawee bank has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of an
ISSUE & RULING: WON drawee Central State Bank is liable for payments indorsement. That the payee is a fictitious person does not relieve the drawee
made bank of this duty, IF the drawer DID NOT KNOW that said payee is fictitious.
YES. A check payable to the order of a fictitious person with drawer’s
knowledge is payable to bearer. However, when this is unknown to drawer, the Adolph Ramish , Inc V Woodruff
drawee bank is in no different position than when it pays a check payable to a RAMISH v WOODRUFF
real party upon a forged instrument. 2 Cal 2d 190 | 29 Dec 1934 | CURTIS, J.
FACTS (#2 is very important):
In this case, McCornack did not know the payee was fictitious. The check 1. A certain Craig executed and delivered to Woodruff a promissory note for
therefore was not payable to bearer, and the bank cannot escape liability. $10,000. Woodruff executed and delivered a similar note ($13,500). Both
notes were dated February 19, 1932, and were to mature 90 days after the
The obligation of a bank is absolute that it will pay only in the manner directed due date. Craig paid nothing on the note.
by the depositor, not that it will exercise reasonable care and diligence to do 2. Craig would later indorse the Woodruff note to Ramish, the indorsement
so. The question of the drawee’s negligence may arise, where drawer was also stating that Craig "hereby waive(s) presentation of the note to the maker,
guilty of negligence. This is not the case here. McCornack was not guilty of demand of payment, protest and notice non-payment, and to guarantee
negligence in making the check payable to one to whom he believed he was payment of the same, and of all expenses of collection thereof including
making a loan and delivering it to one who made application on behalf of the attorney's fees, incurred in enforcing this GUARANTY, and do hereby without
borrower for the loan. There is no showing that anything had come to his notice, expressly consent to the delay or indulgence of encforcing payment
knowledge to put him upon inquiry as to Halverson’s honesty. and to express extension of payment of the same."
3. Ramish sued Woodruff on the note. In Woodruff's defense, he admits the
(IMPORTANT) execution and delivery of note to Craig but denies that title was transferred
because that the note was only delivered to Ramish for inspection and
Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

investigation; however, he notes that Ramish may sue as the note was the favor of due course holding. Given the indorsement and these
basis of collateral security (for $6820). Such defense is available to him since circumstances, it appears that there was at the very least an indorsement
Ramish is being argued to not be a holder in due course. and a holder in due course, such that there would be liability on the full
The basis of this argument is the nature of the indorsement made by Craig to consideration PLUS the collateral security.
Ramish-- whether or not it was meant for collateral security or for transfer of In other words, even if the indorsement is stated as a guaranty, it is still
title. considered an indorsement unless it seeks to enlarge the liability of the
4. Trial court of California ruled in favor of Woodruff (there was valid transfer 'guarantor/indorser.'
of title-- there was valid indorsement from Craig to Ramish). Hence this
petition. Wachovia Bank V Crafton
Wachvoia Bank v. Crafton
ISSUE: Whether or not Woodruff is liable as a general indorser in spite of the
'guaranty'. (YES) 181 N.C. 404 107 Se.E. 316 (1921)
HELD: Reversed.
- In this kind of scenario, the 'indorsement' may be considered either a FACTS:
guaranty or indorsement depending on two factors: (1) w/n there is a This is a promissory note for a gambling debt. Maker is J.M. Carver, payee
passage of title, and (2) the nature of the liability incurred by the transferor J.W. Crafton. Crafton indorsed the note to Wachovia and now denies
who has made the 'guaranty'/'indorsement'. In this case, the only issue is (1)
liability on the note because the law provides all notes and contracts for
as the only defense invoked was offset against the original payee (Craig).
- Crucial here is the statement that purports to be either a guaranty or an gambling debts are void. Wachovia is a holder in due course.
indorsement. There are two views on how this may operate:
a. The minority rule is that a guaranty placed on a bill/note does not constitue ISSUE / HELD
a commercial negotiation thereof, and that the guaranty is a separate W/N Wachovia can collect. YES
contract. (based on the theory that a blank indorsemen admits of the
implications of its terms only becase of the fact that it is in blank; where there
are express terms, there can be no implied terms)
b. The majority rule, applied by the Court due to their being in accordance The law that makes this note void does not extend to suits by an innocent
with the policy of free circulation of commercial papers as money substitutes indorsee for value and holder in due course against an indorser for his
and given NIL 63 (one is deemed an indorser unless he clearly indicates by contract of indorsement. The contract of indorsement is separable and
appropriate words his intent to be bound in some other capacity), is that if independent of the instrument. It guarantees that the instrument is a valid
one shows intent to be treated as guarantor/indorser, he shall be treated as and subsisting obligation. Thus the recovery should be sustained.
one. For example, a word of guaranty enlarges one's liability-- here, one
does not merely assume the burdens of indorsement, but also assumes the
unconditional liability of a guarantor (in contrast, an indorser is conditionally Horowitz V Wollowitz
liable; presentment, dishonor, and proceedings for dishonor/protest are Horowitz v. Wollowitz, Cohen, Jormack, et al. (1908)
required). (1) Maker (Cohen) created promissory note pay to order of himself for
An example of what was considered a guaranty stated: "I hereby sell, set $500. Delivered to 1st indorser (Wollowitz ) who indorsed it to last
over and assign the note... and hereby GUARANTEE that this is a good, indorser (Jormack) and finally sold for value and indorsed to plaintiff
valid and subsisting promissoryu note." holder (Horowitz).
- There appears to be conflict among the evidence present (the indorsement (2) Upon presentment, Cohen refused to honor his obligation on the
itself, the argument that there was no delivery of the note other than for grounds that Jormack was paid a usurious rate on the note by Cohen
purposes of inspection and investigation; there were even points on lack of which rendered the PN void ab initio. (defense of illegality used by the
meeting of minds and authority of agent). However, in case of doubt, the maker against the holder).
tendency of the law is to resolve doubtful cases on negotiable instruments in
Digest Compilation 5.b-Bills, Notes and Commercial Papers | May 4, 2016

(3) Case was filed against all indorsers and the maker. BUT the subject
of the appeal was the liability of the last indorser (Jormack).

NOT AN ISSUE: The court did not pass on the question of WON a maker can
use the defense of illegality against a holder in due course since,
ISSUE: What was the liability of the last indorser (Jormack)?
HELD: Jormack is liable to Horowitz because:
(1) Section 116 of the NIL states that every indorser who indorses without
qualification warrants to all subsequent holders in due course, inter
alia, that the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and
(2) Furthermore, apart from NIL 116, it is an established rule that the
obligation of an indorser is a new and independent contract, separate
and distinct from the contract evidenced in the note.

DISPOSITIVE: Remand for further trial.

Other examples cited in the case:
(1) Packard v. Windholz – Maker was Truman. Truman forged first
indorsement of Eaton to Windholz. Windholz made real indorsement
to Packard. Windholz was found liable to Packard even if he did not,
in good faith, know about the first forged indorsement beause he
guaranteed the genuineness of all prior indorsements.
(2) Lennon v. Grauer – even if maker’s signature was forged, it is not a
defense that can be used by the indorser since he guaranteed all prior