ATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Course Outline’ Professor: Dr. Angela C. Ylagan” Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition; Reference Book: “Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994. METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG 80 Right Answers Wrong Answers minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law/ student —_| 20 Wrong Answers just guessed the answer): 20 Grade Right Answers: 80 Blank or No Answer: 20 - minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80/100 {- a Cases" 14. Montinola v. Philippine Natioi | (1951) 2. Slate Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 32 (1993) 3. Bataan Cigar & Cigarette Factory, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 643 (1994) *De Ocampo v. Gatchalian, 3 SCRA 596 (1961) Prudencio v. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 7 (1986) Chan Wan v. Tan Kim, 109 Phil. 706 (1960) ‘A. Rights of a Holder in Due | Secs. $7, | 6. Bank of Phil Islands v. Alfred Berwin & Co., 52 Phil. | Course 58 NIL 147 (1928) *Chan Wan v. Tan Kim, 109 Phil. 706 (1960) *State Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 32 (1993) 7. Atrium Management Corporation v. Court of al Bank, 88 Course Ooas | Chapter lil Holder in Due | } | | "paseo on Notes and Selected Coses on Negolable staments Law by Jose ©. Campos, Jr and Mara Cla Lopez-Campos, Fit Eaton p08 1 ewer, Pnppoe Garand New York State Bor, Cried Pub Accountant (© PA); Bache of Lows LL.) Universi ofthe Phipines UP.) Cee Caner Cane (te), Boston Unversiy (8), Mascachuset, USA, Dodo of Cat Law (OC), Unveriy of Selo Tomas (os SQoezes ‘J Long Exams are given every meeting The coverage for all weekly quizzes, long exams, mid-term exam, and final exam is cumulative (cts ron 93s ein a8 sje atte in becouse oun ote at] wees of das ul he curent weeh) The meter exam Sra tra esorshave ihe sane weg asa wcely exam Mahod of Crecing !Scoon for trams, RIGHT ANSWERS MINUS WRONG ANSWERS Ninel etact Sate gets on yee sheets yelow pad of cases asad for he week are requed 10 e submited every weekB. Holder for Value 1. What Constitutes Value 2. Bank Credit for Value 3. What Constitutes a ‘Holder for Value [he Holder has a Lien on Instrument_ 5. Burden of Proof | ATTORNEY'S OATH (included in all weekly quizzes, mid-term exam, and final exam) Secs. 24, 25 NIL Sec. 26 Nie Sec. 27 [Nt Sec. 24 NIL Res of Court (RoC), ependve eestana seaera Forme, Form se atomey’s Oath Appeals, 353 SCRA 23 (2001) *De Ocampo v. Gatchalian, 3 SCRA 596 (1961) 8. Fossum v. Fernandez Hermanos, 44 Phil. 675 (1923) Section 52-59 | 9. Stelco Marketing vs. CA 210 SCRA 51 | 10. Bataan Cigar vs. CA 230 SCRA 642 j 11. Dino vs. Judal-Loot et. al. 618 SCRA 393 12. Hi-Cement Corporation vs. IBAA 534 SCRA 269 13, State Investment House vs. CA 217 SCRA 32 14. Banco Atlantico vs. Auditor General 81 SCRA 335 15 Salas vs. CA 181 SCRA 16. Consolidated Plywood vs. IFC Leasing 149 SCRA 448 17. Sps. Violago vs. BA Finance Corporation 559 SCRA 69 18. BPI vs. Roxas 536 SCRA 168 19. Montinola vs. PNB 88 Phil. 178 20. Yang vs. Court of Appeals 409 SCRA 159 21. Mesina vs. IAC 145 SCRA 159 22. Asia Banking Corporation vs. Ten Sen Guan 44 Phil. 511 23. Spouses Violago v. BA Finance Corp., G.R. No. 158262, July 21, 2008 24. Robert Dino v. Maria Luisa Judal-Loot, G.R. No 470912, April 19, 2010 25 Pineda v. De La Rama, 121 SCRA 671 (1983) 26.Walker Rubber Corp. v. Nederlandsch Indishe & Handlesbank, 105 Phil. 934 (1959) 27 Claude P. Bautista v. Auto Plus Traders, G.R. No. 166405, August 6, 2008 28. Eusebio Gonzales v. PCIB, G.R. No. 180257, February 23, 2011 29. Caltex Phils. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA. 458 (1992) _ a 30. Travel-on vs. CA 210 SCRA 351 Pineda vs. dela Rama 121 SCRA 671ATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Course Outline’ Professor: Dr. Angela C. Ylagan? Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition; Reference Book: “Notes and Selected Cases on Negoliable_Instruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994 METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG Right Answers: 80 80 Right Answers | Wrong Answers minus | (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law/ student | 20 Wrong Answers just guessed the answer): 20 ~ > Grade = 60 / 100 Right Answers: 80 100 Total | Blank or No Answer: 20 minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80 / 100 Week04s0 eee aa ee ee Chapter III Holder in Due Sec. 52 NIL _ Course ee C, Holder in Good Faith Secs. 55, 4. Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court 56 NIL of Appeals, 350 SCRA 446 (2001) *De Ocampo v. Gatchalian, 3 SCRA 596 (1961) 2. Mesina v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 145 SCRA — _A9T (1986) _ — 7 Notice, Bad Faith: Vicente R. De Ocampo & Co. V. Gatchaliat Effect of Suspicious L-15126, Nov. 30, 1961, 3 SCRA 596 Circumstances 3, State Investment House v. IAC, G.R. No. 7276, July 13, 1989, 175 SCRA 310 2. *Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. v. IFC Holder in Good Faith Leasing & Acceptance Corp, 149 SCRA 448 Apr as to Buyer 13, 1987 4 Salas v. CA, Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corp., 181 SCRA 296 January 22, 1990 __ "posed on “Noles and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law.” by Jose © Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edtion yas 720 per, Philippine Bar and New York State Bar, Certied Pubic Accountant (C-P.A). Bachelor of Laws (LL.B ), University ofthe Phiippnes (UP ) Cote ci Law Moste of Laws (LLM), Boston Unversiy (BU), Massachusetts, U.S A, Doctor of Civil Law (D.C.L.), University of Santo Tomas sty (USP es / Long Exams ore given every meeting. The coverage for a weekly quizzes, long exams, mkhterm exam. and final exam is cumulative (aang dm abe eluding af subject mate ted in the course utine for the frst [1] week of class uni the curtent week). The mderm exam {nd final exam have ihe same weigh! a5 a wacky exam Motnod of Covtecing / Scoring for Exams. RIGHT ANSWERS MINUS WRONG ANSWERS. art oa esee Yigests (or yellow sheets | yellow pad) of cases assigned for the week are requred fo be submited every week“3. Effect of Purchase at a | Discount oe 4. Effect of Notice Before 5. Pennoyer v. Dubois State Bank, 35 Wyo. 319, Full Payment _ a Pac. 795 (1926) ae ee 5. Constructive Notice ‘Sec. 29 NL | 6. The Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Aruego, 102 Accommodation Not SCRA 530 (1981) Notice of Defect 7. Town Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 459 (1993) 8. Ang Tiong v. Lorenzo Ting, 22 SCRA 713 (1968) 9. Republic Bank v. Ebrada, 65 SCRA 680 (1975) 10. Prudencio v. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 7 (1986) 11, People v. Maniego, 148 SCRA 30 (1987) 12. Crisologo Jose v. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA |) 594(1989) 13. United General Industries, Inc. v. Paler, 112 SCRA 404 (1982) 14, Sadaya v. Sevilla, 19 SCRA 924 (1967) 15, Caneda, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 762 (1990) 16. Clark vs. Sellner 42 Phil. 384 | 17. Maulini vs. Serrano 28 Phil. 640 18. PNB vs. Maza & Mecenas 48 Phil. 207 19. Sadaya vs. Sevilla 19 SCRA 924 20. Agro Conglomerates vs. Soriano 348 SCRA 450 21. Ang vs. Associated Bank 532 SCRA 244 22. Baulista vs. Auto Plus Traders Inc. and CA 561 SCRA 223 Rules ot Coun ATTORNEY'S OATH (RoC), Appendix (incloded in al weekly quizzes, midterm — | Legal and ‘exam, and inal exam) ‘Judicial Forms, Form 28 ‘Allomneys Oath, ‘Ateneo de Manila University ~ Schoo! of Law Students’ Harabook Vill. Code of Conduct 1. General Principles 72 Dedication to study, integriy, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all ies of all Ateneo Lew students, 113 As students of the law and future lawyers. itis imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly ‘observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 2. Dress Code 3. Student Identification Cards 4. Offenses 24 Any of the following acts, oF those simitar thereto, shall constitute @ ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re- tenrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severly and frequency of the offense 11 48 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law Schoo! Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures. 32.9 Cheating in witlen examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions Which may be imposed 4411 Vidlation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar 4.4.19 Acts iavolving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit. 44.22 Any olher acts similar or analogous to the foregoing,ATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Course Outline’ Professor: Dr. Angela C. Ylagan? Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition; Reference Book: “Notes and Selected Cases _on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994. ___ METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG | Right Answers: 80 80 Right Answers. Wrong Answers minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law / student | 20 Wrong Answers > Grade = 60 / 100 just guessed the answer): 20 100 Total ” minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80 / 100 “Right Answers: 80 ol eeCawseee| ee S a ‘Sec. 52 *Montinola v. Philippine National Bank, 88 Phil. Course NIL 178 (1951) *State Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 32 (1993) “Bataan Cigar & Cigarette Factory, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 643 (1994) “De Ocampo v. Gatchalian, 3 SCRA 596 (1961) *Prudencio v. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 7 (1986) | *Chan Wan v. Tan Kim, 109 Phil. 706 (1960) | 1. Charles A. Fossum vs. Fernandez Hermanos, | | G.R. No. 19461, March 28, 1923 2. Isidro S. Santos vs. Arturo P. Reyes, G.R. No. 42081, June 26, 1937 | 3. Banco Atlantico vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L- | 33549, January 31, 1978 |4 Atrium Management Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109491, February 28, 2001 5. Lourdes M. De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121794, February 28, 2001 * paved on ‘Noles and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instiumens Law.” by Jose C. Campos, Jr and Maria Clara Lopee-Compos, Fifth Editon 1998 2 Nomber, Phippine Bar and New York State Bar. Certfied Pubc Accountant (C.P.A.), Bachelor of Laws (LL.B), Unversity ofthe Phitppines (UP ) ‘Cope ot Law, Master of Lows (LLM). Boston Unnersty (@U), Mossachusetis, USA. Decor of Civil Law (OC.L), Uniersiy of Santo Tomas (ust) (USD os rLong Exams are gun every mesing The coeroe fo a wecly quizzes, ong exams, mite exam, and nal exam culate Caer ine nediag ak subject mati sted inthe Course outne fr the fst (19] week of class uni he current week) The mid-term exam teeinnal exam hove the same weight as a weekly exam. Method of Correcting / Scotng for Exams. Right Answers Minus Wong Answers A gnd watten cave digests (on yelow sheets! yellow pad) of cases assqjned for he week are requied to Be submited every weekD. Complete and Regular Sec. 124 | 6. Miles City Bank v. Askin, 119 Mont. 581, 179 P. ie 2d 750 (1947) 7. Bronson v. Stetson, 252 Mich. 6, 232 NW. 741 (1930) 8. American Bank vs. Macondray & Co., 4 Phil 695, GR. No. 1808, August 23, 1905 9. PNB v. CA, 256 SCRA 491 10. _ International Corporate Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 129910. September 5, 2006 wh Bank of America v. Phil. Racing Club, G.R. No. 150228, July 30, 2009 Banco Atlantico vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L- | 33549, January 31, 1978 | Montinola v. PNB, 88 Phil 178 | State Investment House v. CA, 217 SCRA 32* E, Holder At orAfter Maturity |Sec.53 | 12. Bliss v. California Coop Producers, 30 Cal. 2d & Without Notice of NIL | 240, 181 P. 2d 369 (1947) Dishonor 13. Barbour v. Finke, et. Al, 47 S.D. 644, 201 N.W. 711 (1924) 14, Le Due v. First Natl, Bank of Kasson, 31 Minn, 33, 16 N.W. 426 (1883) 15. Idaho State Bank v. Hooper Sugar Co., 74 Utah 24, 276 Pac. 659, 68 A.L.R. 969 (1929) 16 nn v. O'Keefe, 5 M. & S. 282 (1816) _ utes ofCout ATTORNEYS OATH (RoC), Append {eloaedin at weekly quizzes, mdterm | Legal and fram, snd'nal exam) Siedal Fors, | Form 28 - Attorney's Oath, alanine a aa Ateneo de Manila University — School of Law Students’ Handbook Vill Code of Conduct 1. General Principles 12 Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students. 1.3.As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations Dress Code Student Identification Cards Offenses 4.4 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute a ground for reprimand, ‘suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense: 4.48 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures. 4.49 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed 4.4.11 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar. 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing. BONATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Course Outline’ Professor: DR. ANGELA C. YLAGAN? Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition; Reference Book: ‘Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, Jr and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994 METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG Right Answers: 80 Wrong Answers. minus, | (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law / student just | 20 Wrong Answers guessed the answer): 20 — > Grade = 60 / 100 Right Answers: 80 400 Total > | minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80 / 100 | Sec. 52 NiL | Cot F. Effect of Post-Dating or Sec. 12 NIL | 1 Ante-Dating Ines Chavez & Co., Ltd. 18 SCRA 356 (1966) 2. Triphonnof v. Sweeney, et. al., 65 Ore. 299, 130 Pac, 979 (1913) Conditional & Restrictive Indorsements : H. Payee as Holder in Due 4, Howard Nat! Bank v. Wilson96 Vt 438, 120 Atl. 889° (Course (1823) — | |. Rights of a Purchaser From | Sec. 58 NIL | 5. Chan Wan v. Tan Kim, 109 Phil. 76 (1960) a Holder in Due Course 6. State Investment House v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 175 SCRA 310 (1989) 7. Atrium Management Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 23 (2001) 8. Fossum v. Fernandez, 44 Phil. 713 (1923) * Gaved on ‘Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law.” by Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fith Edition 1994 2 Mnnber Ptutesne Ber and New York Slate Bar. Certfied Pubic Accountant (C.P-A), Bachelor of Laws (LLB }, University of the Phiippines (U.P) Coicge al Law Master of Laws (LL AL). Boston Universty (BU), Massachusetts, U.S.A. Doctor of Gal Law (0 GL), University of Santo Tomes (UST) Fe eng Cram are gen every meetin The coverage fora weekly quizzes, long exams, miétetm Exam, and final exam s curulalve {ctartng fom ard neuding al Subject mate sted nthe course ouline fo theft (1"] week of cass uni the current weak), The mierm exam and {ates nave the same weight as weekly exam Method of Cortecting / Scoring for Exams. Right Answers Minus Wrong Answers, iad amor case eugests (or yellow sheels/ yellow pad) of cases assigned forthe week are requved to Be submited every week 1J. Presumption in Favor of | Sec. 69 NIL | 9. Asia Banking Gorp. v. Tan Sen Guan, 44 Phil. 511° Due Course Holding (1923) 10. Sps. Pedro and Florencia Violago vs. BA | | Finance Corp., et al., G.R. No. 158262, July 21, | 2008 K. Transfer of Unindorsed ‘Sec. 49 NIL | + Vicente R. De Ocampo & Co. vs. Anita Gatchallan, Instrument G.R. No. L-15126, November 30, 1961 44. Commercial Bank of Lafayette v. Trust Co. v. Barry, 179 La. 684, 154 So. 736 (1934) | 42. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of 7 a ____| Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 136202, January 25, 2007 Rules of ATTORNEY'S OATH Court (included in all weekly quizzes, | (RoC), mid-term exam, and final Appendix exam) Legal and Judicial Forms, Form 28 Attorney's Oath. a Ateneo de Manila University - School of Law Students’ Handbook vill ON Code of Conduct General Principles 1 2Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students. 1.3As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Dress Code ‘Student Identification Cards Offenses 4.4 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute a ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense: 4.4.8 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures 4.4.9 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed. 4.4.11 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit. 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing.ATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Course Outline’ Professor: DR. ANGELA C. YLAGAN? Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition; Reference Book:“Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, Jr and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994 METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG 80 Right Answers. Right Answers: 80 ‘Wrong Answers minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law / student just | 20 Wrong Answers guessed the answer): 20 ~ > Grade = 60 / 100 Right Answers: 80 100 Total - ee | Blank or No Answer: 20 minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80 / 100 Week 07: : opi Law? (Cases Chapter IV Defenses & Equities Secs. 57, 58, | A. Defenses & Equities in General _| 55 NIL B. Incapacity = | C. legality _ D. Forgery Sec. 23 NIL | Forged signature of drawer San Carlos Milling vs. BPI 59 Phil. 59 PNB vs. Quimpo 158 SCRA 582 PNB vs. CA 25 SCRA 693 MWSS vs. CA 143 SCRA 20 Republic vs. Equitable Bank 10 SCRA ®aSON 8 7. PNB vs. National City Bank of NY 63 Phil. 711 8. lusorio vs. CA 393 SCRA 261 9. BPI vs. Casa Montessori International 430 SCRA 261 * Baved on ‘Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law” by Jose C. Campos. Jr and Mana Clara Loper-Campos, Fit Edtion 1994 > Paencber Phippine Bar and New York State Bar, Certfed Pubic Accountant (C.P A), Bachelor of Laws (LL.B. University of tne Philipines (U P_) Cane Cou scr of Laws (ULM), Boston Unversty (BU), Massachusetts, USA. Doctor of Ci Law (O.C.L.), University of Santo Tamas (UST) Sa eee a aie gwen every mesting. The coverage for all weekly quizzes, long exoms, mid-tean éxom, and final exam is cumulative {etartng trom and nclng at svbject matter Hsted in the course outine fr the fst 1") week of class until the current week) The miéterm exam and final exam nave the same weight as a weekly exam, Method of Correcting / Scoring for Exams Right Answers Minus Wrong Answers, ica uniten cave digests (on yelow sheets! yellow pad) of cases assigned for the week are required tobe submited every week 1[ATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Professor. DR. ANGELA C. YLAGAN' Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition Reference Book: ‘Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994 METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG ight Answers: 80 80 Right Answers Wrong Answers minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law / student just | 20 Wrong Answers | guessed the answer): 20 > Grade = 60 / 100 100 Total minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80 / 100 Right Answers: 80 Blank or No Answer: 20 — Course Outline” Week 10: caalopcieest = hapter V Liability of Parties [ 1. Liability of an Agent Secs 19, 20, | 4 21, 69 NIL Islands, 66 SCRA 29 (1975) 2. Phil Bank of Commerce v. Aruego, L-25736, January 31, 1981, 102 SCRA 530 Remo vs. Court of Appeals 172 SCRA 405 Insular Drug vs. PNB 58 Phil. 634 Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Aruego 102 SCRA 530 Francisco vs. Court of Appeals 319 SCRA 354 Astro Electronics Corp. vs. Phil. Export 411 SCRA 462 ase NO ‘I Signature by Trade Name _| Sec. 18 NIL_ J. Presentment A 7. When Necessary, Secs 143, Phil. National Bank v. Seato, 91 Phil. 756 (1952) _ of Non-Presentment 444, 193 NIL | 8. Prudential Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 216 SCRA 257 (1992) ember Phitppine Bar and New York Bar, Doctor of Cl Law (D.C.L), Unwersity of Santo Tomas ~ Graduate School; Master of Laws (LLM) ~ pasion Unversity, Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Unweray of the Phiippines, Certhed Public Accountant (CP A). jlee and Selected Cases on Negotiable isiruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, 1. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Faon 1904 ag Exams ate given every meeting. The coverage for al weekly quizzes, long exams, mi-tem exam. and final exam is cumulative aaa a ang abject mater rete tho couse ute for the fat 1] week of css Une rent week) The mierm exam and (sla Ho ihe came weight ae a weekly exam. Method of Corecing/ Scoring for Exams. Right Answers Minus Wrong Answers eater on cane anjeste fon yelow sheets! yellow pad) of eases assigned for tne week are requred fo be submited every week Course Outine based on Edition 1984 1| 4. Dishonor and Its Effects K. Presentment for Payment _ 1, When Presentment Necessary; Effect of Non- Prese 2 2. When Presentment Not Necessary _ Parties @. Gaston v. Republic, 19 SCRA 684 (1967) 10.Phil, Bank of Commerce vs. Aruego 102 SCRA 530 Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp, 93 Phil. 963 (1953) Secs. 145, fase a oe | Secs. 148, 147 NIL Secs. 149, | 11.Asia Banking Corporation v. Javier, 44 Phil. 779 150, 151, 89, | (1923) 117 NIL 12. Nyco Sales Corporation v. BA Finance Corporation, 200 SCRA 637 (1991) Section 89 13. Asia Banking Corp. vs. Javier 44 Phil. 777 14. Firestone Tire vs. CA 353 SCRA 601 15. Gullas vs. PNB_62 Phil 519 Sec. 70 NiL | Checks. c. As to All Secondary Secs. 82, a 151, 17 1NIL_| [ oo 3. Date and Time of Secs 77, 85, Far East Realty Investment, Inc. v. Presentment of 86, 194 NIL Appeals, 166 SCRA 256 (1988) Instrument Bearing Fixed | Maturity . _ — 4. Date of Presentment of Sec. 71 NIL Far East Realty Investment, Inc. v. Court of Demand Notes Appeals, 166 SCRA 256 (1988) 47. Republic vs. PNB 3 SCRA 851 18. The International Corporate Bank vs. Spouse a : Gueco 351SCRA516___ 5. Dale of Presentment of | 19.Columbian Banking v. Bowen, 134 Wis. Demand Bills of N.W. 451 (1908) __ Exchange : = : — . 6. Date of Preseniment of — | Secs. 185 PNB v. Seato, 91 Phil. 756 (1952) and 186 20. Crystal v. Court of Appeals, L-35767 June 18, ee 1976, 71 SCRA 443 7. When Delay in Sec. 81 NIL Presentment Excused : ee . : __8. Manner of Presentment _| Sec. ' oe = ce] 9. What Constitutes Sec. 72 NIL_ | 21. State investment House v. Intermediate Sufficient Presentment Appellate Court, 175 SCRA 310 (1989)____|“Chan Wan v. Tan Kim, 50 O.G. 1554 (1960) Crossed Checks 22. Associated Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 89802 May 27, : 1992, 208 SCRA 465 __ b. Time of Presentment | Secs. 72 (b), State Investment House v. Intermediate | = eo Nile Appellate Court, 175 SCRA 310 (1989) c. Place of Presentment _ Sec. 73 NIL __ ee fe “| d. To Whom Presentment | Secs. 72(d), State Investment House v. Intermediate MustbeMade «| 76, 7,78 Appellate Court, 175 SCRA 310 (1989) _ |40. What Constitutes Sec. 83 NiL Dishonor by Non-Payment a - 11. Effect of Dishonor by Sec. 84 NIL Philippine National Bank v. Seato, 91 Phil. 756 | Non-Payment eee eee (1992) e Rules of ATTORNEY'S OATH Court (RoC), (included in all weekly quizzes, | Appendix: mid-term exam, and final Legal and exam) | Judicial Forms, Form 28 Attorney's Cath Ateneo de Manila University — School of Law Students’ Handbook VII. Code of Conduct 1. General Principles 4.2Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students 1.3As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Dress Code Student Identification Cards Offenses 4.4 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute a ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense: 4.48 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures. 4.4.9 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed 4.4.11 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar. 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing BONATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Professor: DR. ANGELA C. YLAGAN' Textbook “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition Reference Book: ‘Notes and Selected Cases _on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994 METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG 80 Right Answers. Wrong Answers minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law / student just | 20 Wrong Answers guessed the answer): 20 ~ Grade = 60 / 100 Right Answers: 80. 100 Total — Blank or No Answer: 20 -~ minus 20 No Answer oe Course Outline”: Week 11 C Topic Z Law Chapter V Liability of Parties L.Notice of Dishonor | 1. To Whom Notice Must be Given. a. If Given By Agent 1. Simon v. People’s Bank & Trust Co., 116 N.J.L- | 390, 184 Atl. 793 (1936) __¢. If Party is Dead d. To Partners [oe To Joint Parties ¥. To Bankrupt “Momber, Phippine Bar and New York State Bar, Doctor af Cri Law (OC), University of Santo Tomas - Graduate Schook Master of Laws (LLM) — eae Gimorsty Gachelor of Laws (LL.B) ~ University ofthe Philppines; Ceiiea Puble Accountant (C PA} Feit Dutlne bused on ‘Noles and Selocted Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law." by Jose C. Campos, J Editon 1994 Fanon 106% ong Exams are given every meeting. The coverage fora weekly quizzes, long exams, miter exam, and final exam is cumtatvg (anaes crn an nung af eojet mater ined he couse ute or he fst 1] week of class ul te cyvent weak) Te mem exam 3nd (star othe came weigh as a weekly exam. Method of Cortectng / Scoring for Exams, RIGHT ANSWERS MINUS WRONG ANSWERS. a erat cave cigests (on yellow sheets / yellow pad) of cases assigned for he week are required to be submited every week, 1 and Mara Clara Lopez-Campos, ith2. In Whose Favor Notice Operates 3. When Rule Requiring Notice Not Applied b. When Notice of Non- ‘Acceptance Already Given __ c. Waiver People’s Nati Bank of Ypsilanti v. Dicks, 258 Mich. 441, 242 N.W. 825 (1932) ~~ d. When Not Necessary to Charge Drawer , When Not Necessary. to Charge Indorser 4. Legal Effect of Failure to | Se Give Notice 2.When Necessary / 3. Form and Contents of Certificate of Protest “4. Purpose of the Certificate. of Protest ~ 8. When Delay is Excused and Protest is Dispensed With ~~ 9. Waiver of Protest _ | 10. Protest in Case of Loss of Instrument P. Liability of Party on Indorsement After Maturity ~~ | Sees 152, 129, | Section 152 | 9. Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of 10. Velasquez vs. Soldbank Corporation 560 “Secs. 155 and | Rules of Court _| (1963) ‘Slate Investment House v. CA, GR. No. 101163, January 11, 1993, 217 SCRA 33 Great Asian Sales vs.CA 381 SCRA 557_| Asia Banking Corporation v. Javier, 44 Phil. 779 (1923) Firestone Tire vs. CA 353 SCRA 601 Gullas vs. PNB _ 62 Phil 519 Behn Meyer & Co. v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp. 93 Phil. 963 (1953) Appeals,et al 494 SCRA 467 sci 119 Ellenbogen v. State Bank, 119 Misc. 711, 197 N.Y. Supp. 278 (1922) Tan Leonco v. Go Inqui, 8 Phil. 531 (1907) Buencamino v. Hemandez, 8 SCRA 483 Bishop v. Dexter, 2 Conn. 419 (1817)Sec. 87 NIL | 15. Binghampton Pharmacy v. First Natl Bank, @ Insiruments Payable Ata Bank 431 Tenn. 711, 176 S.W. 1038, 2A.LR. 1377 i: a (1915) . one = R. Bills In Set Secs 178, 179, 2 180, 181, 182, 483 NIL ‘S. Liability of Transferors or —_| Article 1628 Assignors of Negotiable | Civil Code Instruments — = : Rules of Court : SS ATTORNEY'S OATH (RoC), | } (included in all weekly quizzes, | Appendix: Legal mid-term exam, and final and Judicial exam) | Forms, Form 28 Lo ees Attorney's Oath. Ateneo de Manila University ~ School of Law Students’ Handbook VII. Code of Conduct 1. General Principles 1 2Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students. 1.3As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, Dress Code Student Identification Cards Offenses 4.4 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute a ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense: 4.48 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures 4.4.9 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed. 4411 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar. 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing. BONATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Professor: DR. ANGELA C. YLAGAN' Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition Reference Book: “Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law.” by Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994 METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG Right Answers: 80 ] 80 Right Answers Wrong Answers. minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law/ student just | 20 Wrong Answers guessed the answer): 20 — Grade = 60 / 100 100 Total minus | 20 No Answer | Grade = 80/100 EE SS =| Course Outline” Week 12: . ' - . Topi Law? | Cases* oo _____Chapter VI Discharge __ | __ a“ ee ‘A. Discharge of the Instrument | Sec. 119 Nil | 1. State Investment House Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 32 (1993) Loe ____| 2 Salazar vs. J.Y. Brothers 634SCRA95__| 1. By Payment in Due Course | Secs. 51 and [3. Tam Weng Tek v. Makasiar, 350 SCRA 475 88 NIL (2001) Art, 1249 Civil Code | 4.Fox v. Kroeger, 119 Tex. 511, 35 S.W. 2d 679 |__(1934) a. Medium ¢ er b. By Whom Made 5. Equitable Banking v. IAC, L-74451, may 25, | 1988, 161 SCRA 518 * Member, Phiippine Bar and New York Bar, Doctor of Cal Law (DCL), Unversity of Santo Tomas - Graduate School, Master of Laws (LLM) ~ Boston Unversty, Bachelor of Laws (LLB) - Uniwersity of the Phiippines, Ceriied Public Accountant (C.P A). F Goalve Outine based on Noles and Selected Cases on Negolible Insiuments Lew." by Jose C Campos, Jr and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Editon 1994 Seance Long Exams are given every meeting. The coverage for al weekly quizzes, long exams, mid-term exam, and fin exam is cumlative {stn trom ard ineuang al subject matter Tsted inthe course outine forthe fst [1°] week of class until the cunt week), The mid-term exam and {nal exam nave the same weight 23 aweekly exam Melhod of Correcting / Scoring for Exams: Right Answers Minus Wrong Answers | Naaaunten cave cigests (on yellow sheets / yellow pad) af eases assigned lor the week are requved tobe submited every week£. In Good Faith and Without | : Notice 2. By Intentional Cancellation | Secs. 119(c), 123 NIL Appeals, 217 SCRA 32 (1993) Salazar vs. J.Y. Brothers 634 SCRA 95 6. Jone’s Administrators v. Coleman, 121 Va. 86, 92 S.E. 910 (1917 3. By Any Other Act which will Discharge aContract | | [ 4. By Reacquisition of Principal | Sec. 119 (e) ‘State Investment House Inc v. Court of Debtor in His Own Right NIL Appeals, 217 SCRA 32 (1993) | 7. Schwartzman v, Post, 94 App. Div. 474, 84 ae a le N.Y.S. 922, 87 N.Y.S. 872 (1903) _ 5, By Renunciation of Holder | Sec. 122 NIL_| 8 McGlynn v. Granstror inn. 164, 210 6. Material Alteration [sa 124, Montinola v. Philippine National Bank, 88 Phil 125 NIL 178 (1951) Rules of ATTORNEY'S OATH Court (RoC), (included in all weekly quizzes, | Appendix. mid-term exam, and final exam) | Legal and Judicial Forms, Form 28 Attorney's | ee | Oath. 1 ‘Ateneo de Manila University — School of Law Students’ Handbook VII, Code of Conduct 1, General Principles 1.2Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students. 4.3As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 2. Dress Code 3. Student Identification Cards 4. Offenses 4.4 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute a ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense: 4.48 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures. 4.4.9 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed 4.4.11 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar. 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit. 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoingATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Professor: DR. ANGELA C, YLAGAN' Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition Reference Book: “Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, Jr and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994 METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG Right Answers: 80 BO Right Answers Wrong Answers. minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law / student just | 20 Wrong Answers guessed the answer): 20 Grade = 60 / 100 Right Answers: 80 100 Total minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80 / 100 Blank or No Answer: 20 — Course Outline”: Week 13: = Topic | baw? hapter VI Discharge : e ae B. Discharge of Secondary Sec. 120 NiL | 1. Clark v. Sellner, 42 Phil. 388 (1921) ties. 1. By Discharge of “2. By Intentional C: rument lation of | Secs. 123, 48 | 2. McCormick v. Shea, 99 N.Y. Supp. 467 (1906) | NIL ~}3. Roberts v. Chapel, 63 Ohio Appl. 3. By Discharge of Prior Party _ as [oA ope’ 8’ ieee fae 4. By valid tender of payment 4. Corley v. French, 154 Tenn. 672, 294 S.W. by prior party __ = 322 | 5. By Release of Principal [Debtor —— Ee ee 6. By Extension of Time of 20 (f) | 5. Maglione v. Penta, 266 Mass. 413, 165 N.E Payment . | 424 (1929) 7_By Renunciation | Seo. 422 NIL J Mamber Phippine Bar and New York State Bar, Doctor of Civil Law (OL), University of Santo Tomas Graduate School Maser of Laws (LLM) penaon Urweraty, Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) ~ University ofthe Philippines; Certified Pubke Accountant (CP A) Beton et ee cn -Nolce and Selecied Cases on Negotiable Istuments Law," by Jose C. Compos, J and Mara Ciara Lo Editon 1994 Fon 180K cag Exams are gwen every meeting, The coverage for all weekly auszes, fang exams, md-erm exam, ang nal exam cunulaie (anaes na cg a abject mater tnd athe corse uti fr he fs 1] wet of class ut te current week) The mer exam nd (staring om atthe came weight asa weekly exam_ Method of Correcting / Scoring fr Exams. Right Answers Minus Wrong Answers, ee a ne sareste {an yelow sheets / yellow pad) of cases asigned for the week ae requred foe submited every week 1pez-Campos, Fifth{8 By Taking a Qualified Sec. 142 NIL | Acceptance oie : 2 9. By Failure to Make Secs. 70, 144 | Section 70 [Presentment =| NIL_|6._Clarkvs, Seliner 42 SGRA 384 70. By Failure to Give Notice of | Sec. 89 NIL | 7. Asia Banking Corporation Dishonor 779 (1923) 8. Nyco Sales Corporation v. BA Finance Corporation, 200 SCRA 637 (1991) Section 89 9. Asia Banking Corp. vs. Javier 44 Phil. 777 10. Firestone Tire vs. CA 353 SCRA 601 14.Gullas vs. PNB_62 Phil 519 71 Certification of Check at__| Sec. 188 NIL Instance of Holder 12. Effect of Reacquisition by | Secs. 121, 50 Prior Party _ ene a a __ = Rules of ATTORNEY'S OATH Court (RoC), (included in all weekly quizzes, _| Appendix | mid-term exam, and final exam) | Legal and Judicial Forms, Form 28 Attorney's | Oath. ‘Ateneo de Manila University — School of Law Students’ Handbook Vill, Code of Conduct 4. General Principles 1 Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students. 4.3As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students tespect authority and strictly observe alll applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Dress Code ‘Student Identification Cards Offenses 4.4 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute a ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense: ‘4.4 8 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures. 4.4.9 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed, 4.411 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar. 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing. BONATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Professor: DR. ANGELA C. YLAGAN' ‘Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition Reference Book: “Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, Jr and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994 METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG Right Answers: 80 — ‘80 Right Answers Wrong Answers minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law / student just) 20 Wrong Answers | guessed the answer): 20 ~ > Grade = 60 / 100 Right Answers: 80 100 Total Blank or No Answer: 20 ~ minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80 / 100 Week 14. Sc Law’ Chapter Vil Other Forms of Commercial Paper : ‘A. Cerificate of Deposit [B. Bonds and Debentures 14. Manker v. American Savings Bank, 131 Wash’ |, 430, 230 Pac. 406 (1924) | 2. Enoch v. Brandon, 249 N.Y. 263, 164 N.E.45__| C. Drafts and Letters of ‘Arts. 567, 568, | 3. Gregorio Araneta, Inc. v. PNB, 95 Phil. 160 Credit 569, 570, 571, (1954) 572 Code of A. Natl Rice & Corn Corp v. Pan-Philippine Commerce Shipping Inc., (Ca) 51 O.G. No. 11, 5654 5. Bank of P.|. v. De Reny Fabric industries Shipping, No. L-24821, October 16, 1970, 35 SCRA 256 Section 126 6. Citytrust Banking Corp. vs. CA 196 SCRA 553 “ember Phitppne Bar and New York Stole Bar Doctor of Civil Law (D.C), Unwersty of Santo Tomas — Graduate School, Master of Laws (LL.M) ~ pacion Univerety, Bachelor of Laws (LL B )~ University ofthe Philppines, Ceniied Publ Accountant (CPA) Poston tin bared on-Notea and Selecied Cases on Negotabie Insitumenis Law," by Jose C. Campos, Jr and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fath Editon 199. Fo 190 og Exams ore given every meeting. The coverage fr all week} quizzes. fg exams, mid-etm exam, and final exam is cumulative Coase tom and eluding a evbjeck matter tsiod the course olin fr the frst [1] week of lass onthe curent week), The mien exam and (Sr ar eit a weekly exam Monod of Corecing / Scoving for Exams RIGHT ANSWERS MINUS WRONG ANSIVERS. Aa era an cave cages (on yelow sheets! yellow pad) of cases assigned forthe week ae required to be submited every week 1and final “Trust Receipts Law ‘D. Certificate of Stock — ‘a. When Free From Personal Defenses b. What Title Acquired ~~ 6. Liability of Indorser ATTORNEY'S OATH (included in all weekly quizzes, mid-term exam, am) Arts. 1518, 1512 — Civil Code | Arts, 1513, 1514, ~ 1519 Civil Code_ Rules of Court (RoC), Appendix | Legal and Judicial Forms, Form 28 Attorney's Oath. edit Annotation _ 228 SCRA 378 Articles 567 to 572, Code of Commerce (Textbook) 7. Bank of America vs. Court of Appeals 228 SCRA 357 8. Feati Bank & Trust Company vs CA 196 SCRA 576 9. Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC 286 SCRA 257 10. Transfield Phil. vs Luzon Hydro Corp. 167 __SCRA 450 ‘Santamaria v. HongKong & Shanghai Bank Corp, 89 Phil. 780 (1951) 12._Delos Santos v. McGrath, 96 Phil. 577 (1955) | 43. Roman v. Asia Bank Corp, 46 Phil. 705 (1922) 14, John S. Hale & Co Inc v Beley Cotton Co., 154 Tenn, 689, 200 S.W. 994 15. Southern Pac. Co. v. Bank of America, 23 Fed, 939 (1928) 46. WS. Brown Mercantile Co. V. Yielding Bros. Dept Store Inc., 200 Ala. 412, 76 So. 4 (1917) 47. Dunagan v. Griffin, 151 SW. 2d 250 (1941) 18. Luhrs v. Valley Ranch Co, 27 Ariz. 306. P. 1014 19. Siy Cong Bieng & Co v. Hongkong & ‘Shanghai Bank, 56 Phil. 598 (1932) __ Trust Receipts Law - Presidential Decree No. 115 20. Spouses Vintola vs. IBAA 159 SCRA 140 21. Prudential Bank vs. |AC_216 SCRA 257 22. Gonzalez vs. HSBC_537 SCRA 255Ateneo de Manila University — School of Law Students’ Handbook vill 1 BON Code of Conduct General Principles 1 2Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students, 4.3As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Dress Code Student Identification Cards Offenses: 4.4 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute a ground for reprimand, Suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense: 4.4.8 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures 4.4.9 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed 44.11 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar. 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit. 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing‘Ateneo de Manila University ~ School of Law Students’ Handbook vill 1 SON Code of Conduct General Principles 12Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students 1.3As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Dress Code Student Identification Cards Offenses 4.4 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute a ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense 448 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures 4.49 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed. 4.4.11 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or ‘commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing"1. In General 2. Acceplance & Payment Under | Mistake _ e a. When Drawee Accepis or Pays Forged Instrument b. Extensions of Price v. Neal Doctrine? i. Over Draft it Stop Payment Order c. Effect of Negligence Depositor__ d. Effect of Payment Under Forged Instruments | e. Effect of Negligence of Drawee in informing Recipient of Forgery Secs. 23, 18 [NIL Sec. 62 NIL | 17. Manila Lighter Trans. vs. CA 182 SCRA | 22. Chiang Yia Min v. Court of Appeals, 355 | | 29. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. | 10. Citibank N.A. vs. Cabamongan 488 SCRA 517 Forged Indorsement 11.Great Eastern Life vs. HSBC 43 Phil. 678 12.Gempesaw v.CA 218 SCRA 682 13. Banco de Oro Savings vs. Equitable 157 SCRA 188 14. BPI vs. CA 216 SCRA 51 15. Jai Alai vs. BPI_ 66 SCRA 29 16.Republic vs. Ebrada_ 65 SCRA 680 251 18. Associated Bank vs. CA 465 19.Associated Bank vs. CA 620 20.Westmont Bank vs. Ong 212 21.PCIBvs.CA___350 SCRA 446 _ 208 SCRA 252 SCRA 375 SCRA SCRA 608 (2001), 23. The Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Aruego, 102 SCRA 530 (1981) 24. Fossum vs. Fernandez 44 Phil. 675 25.PNB vs. CA 25 SCRA 693 26. PNB vs. National City Bank of NY64 Phil 711 27.FEBTC vs. Gold Palaca Jewellery Co. 562 SCRA 604 28. Republic of the Philippines v. Banking Corporation, 10 SCRA 8 (1964) Appeals, 216 SCRA 51 (1992) 30. Gempesaw v. CA, L-92244, February 9. 1993, 218 SCRA 682 (1993) > price v. Neal (3 Burt 1354, 97 Eng, Rep. 871): “as between equally innocent persons, the drawee who pays money on a check or draft the signature ‘on wich was foiges cannot recover the Maney from the one whe received H, Aeceptance prior fo payment is not a preraquiste tothe rule; and the rule ‘pplios aike where payment is received without pror acceptance and where is paid ater acceptance.” (Kansas Bankers Surely Co. v. Ford Country State Bonk, 338 Pa 309) 2f. Effect of Negligence of Drawer in case of Forged E. Material Alteration 4. In General of Checks Acceptance of Altered Check G. Duress, H. Complete Instrument which is Undelivered [ATTORNEY'S OATH (included i al weekly quizzes, midterm exam, and ‘nal exam) ~2. Effect of Negligence of Drawer 3. Effect of Drawee’s Payment or Secs. 124, 125 NIL Sec. 15 NIL ‘Sec. 14 NIL Sec. 28 NIL Rules of Court (RoC) | Aopendie Legal and | susie! Forms, Form 26 atoroey’s Oath. __| 28 attorney's Oath. _| ‘Ateneo de Manila University ~ School of Law Students’ Handbook VII Code of Conduct 1. General Principles 35. 36. | 37. 38. 39, GR. No. 42725, April 22, 1991 Montinola v. PNB, 88 Phil. 178 (1951) HongKong & Shanghai Banking Corp v. | People’s Bank & Trust Co., 35 SCRA 140, Sept 30, 1970 Republic Bank v. CA and First Natt City Lim v, Court of Appeals, 66 SCAD 691, 251 SCRA 408 (1995) Manuel Lim vs. Court of Appeals SCRA 408 People vs. Grospe_ 157 SCRA 154 Dela Victoria vs. Burgos 245 SCRA 374 Development Bank of Rizal vs. Sima Wei 219 SCRA 736 San Miguel Corporation vs. Puzon, Jr 631 SCRA 48 251 7S Dedication to study, integrily, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students, 1.3 As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authonty and strictly ‘observe ail applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Dress Code ‘Student Identification Cards Offenses 44 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute @ ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re- enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the seventy and frequency ofthe offense v1 4 8 Plagiarism as delined in the Aleneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures. 4.4.9 Cheating in willen examinations and / oF duting oral recitations, without prejudice to may be imposed 4.4.11 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission ‘academic sanctions which lf acts which otherwise ‘adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, oF deceit 4.422 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing,ATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Professor: DR. ANGELA C. YLAGAN' Textbook: “The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition Reference Book: "Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994.Course Outline® METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG Right Answers: 80 | 80 Right Answers Wrong Answers minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law/ student | 20 Wrong Answers just guessed the answer): 20 — > Grade = 60 / 100 Right Answers: 80 100 Total Blank or No Answer: 20 minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80 / 100 LA. Liability of Primary Parties 1. In General Secs. 192, | ONIE a | "2. Liability of Maker Sec.60 | 1. Tan Sia v. Yu Biao Sontua, 56 Phil. 707 (1932) | NIL Section 60 | 2. PNB vs. Maza & Macenas 48 Phil. 207 3. Araneta vs. Perez 14 SCRA 498 4, Tan Tua Sia vs. YuBiao___56 Phil. 707_ 3, Sialus of Drawee Prior to | Secs. 127, | 5. Republic v Philippine National Bank, 3SCRA | Acceptance or Payment; | 189 NIL 851 (1961) Effect of Stop Order 6. Security Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 33 (1988) 7. Leopoldo Araneta v. Bank of America, No. L- | | 25414 July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 144 8. Singson v. Bank of P.1., L-24837, June 27, _1968, 23 SCRA 1117 Member, Phiippine Bar and New York Bar, Master of Laws (LL.M) — Boston University, Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) ~ University ofthe Philippines: Doctor of Givi Law (OC L) - University of Santo Tomas Graduate Schoo! Pearse Outline based on ‘Noles and Selected Cases on Negotabie Instruments Law” by Jose C. Campos, Jr and Maria Clara Lopez-Gampos, Fifin Edivon 1994 FQuisses / Long Exams are gwen every meeting. The coverage forall weekly quizzes, long exams, midterm exam. and final exam is cumlatve {starting om one including a! subject Patter Hsted in the course ouline for the fst [1] week of class until the cuvtent week), The mi-term exam tig tnat exam have the same weight as a weekly exam. Method of Corecting | Scoring for Exams: Right Answers Minus Wrong Answers and water cave digest (on yelow sheets / yellow pad) of eases assigned for Ihe week are required fo be submited every week 14. Liability of Acceptor Acceptance | 2. Qualified Acceptance ~ a. Conditional _ _ 4. Banker's Acceptance ————EE | 1. Constructive Acceptance Sec. 62 NIL Secs. 191, 132, 133, 138 NIL ‘Sees 136, 137, 150 NIL | Secs. 134, 135 NIL Sec. 139, 140 NIL Secs. 141, 4142 NIL. Section 189 9. Tanvs.CA 239 SCRA310 10. Villanueva vs. Nite 496 SCRA 459 11. Miranda vs. PDIC, BSP and Prime 501 SCRA 288 ‘The Philippine National Bank v. Aruego, 102 SCRA 530 (1981) Fossum vs. Fernandez 44 Phil. 675 PNB vs. CA 25 SCRA 693 415. PNB vs. National City Bank of NY _ 64 Phil. 711 416. FEBTC vs. Gold Palaca Jewellery Co. 562 —SCRAGA The Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Aruego, 4102 SCRA 530 (1980) 17.Sumacad v. Province of Samar, 100 Phil. 72 (1956) 18. Lawless v. Temple, 254 Mass. 395, 150 N.E 176 (1926) 19 Kilgore Natl. Bank v. Moore Bros. Lumber Co., 102 S.W. 2d 200 (1937) Section 132 20. PNB vs. CA 25 SCRA 693 21. Urwiller v. Platte Valley State Bank, 164 Nei 630, 83 N.W. 2d 88 (1957) Sectrion 137 22. Cebu International vs. CA 316 SCRA 488 Sumacad v. Province of Samar, 52 0.G. 18, 7582 (1956) _ 42 13, 14 | ATTORNEY'S OATH (included in all weekly quizzes, mid- term exam, and final exam) Rules of Court (RoC) Appendix: Legal and Judicial Forms, Form 28 Attorney's _| ath.Ateneo de Manila University — School of Law Students’ Handbook Vill. Code of Conduct 1. General Principles 1.2Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students. 1.3As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Dress Code Student Identification Cards Offenses 4.4 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute a ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense: 448 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures. 4.49 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed. 4.4.11 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar. 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing. RONATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL Negotiable Instruments Law Professor: DR. ANGELA C. YLAGAN' Textbook:"The Philippine Negotiable Instruments Law (and Allied Laws) Annotated” by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., latest Edition Reference Book:"Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law,” by Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Fifth Edition 1994 METHOD OF CORRECTING FOR EXAMS: RIGHT MINUS WRONG ~~ 7 80 Right Answers. Wrong Answers. minus (Answer given is not verbatim provision of law / student just | 20 Wrong Answers guessed the answer): 20 ~ > Grade = 60 / 100 Right Answers: 80 Blank or No Answer: 20 — 100 Total minus 20 No Answer Grade = 80 / 100 “Course Outline” Week 09: E.Checks 4. Definition, Nature and Secs. 185, 63 Kinds NIL January 30, 1990 2. Fortunado v. CA, G.R. No. 78556, April 21, 1991, 196 SCRA 269 Section 185 Moran vs. CA 230 SCRA 799 Firestone Tire vs. Ines Chaves 18 SCRA 356 | Bataan Cigar vs. CA _ 230 SCRA 643 | Metropolitan Bank vs. PBCom 536 SCRA 556 Republic vs. PNB 3 SCRA 851 Mesina vs. IAC 145 SCRA 497 Section 63 9. Ang Tiong vs. Ting 22 SCRA713 10. Tuazon, et al vs. Heir of Bartolome Ramos 463 SCRA 408 @NOnSO * Member, Phiippine Bar and New York Bar, Doctor of Civil Law (0 C L.), University of Santo Tomas — Graduate School, Master of Laws (LLM) — ‘Borlon Universty Bachelor of Laws (LLB) ~ University ofthe Phitopines, Cerfied Public Accountant (C PA). Seton outing based on Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Insiruments Law," by Jose C, Campos. Jr_and Maria Ciara Lopez-Campos, ith Edition 1994 Fore oe ong Exams ate given every meeting, The coverage for al weekly quizzes, long exams, midterm exam, and final exam i cumulative (cree dae cag at objet mote ted in he course ouline or ne Wt [1°] week of class unt he current week) The meterm exam and Tee ratte the same neight a8 weekly exam Method of Corecting / Scoring for Exams: Right Answers Minus Wrong Anse, arereretrton case digests [om yellow sheets | yellow pad) of cases assigned for the week ave requved to be submited every week 13. Distinction Between ‘Surrender of Check Upon Payment and Negotiation, 4, Clearing of Checks F. Liability of Secondary Parties 1. Liability of Drawer | 2. Criminal Liability for Bouncing Checks _ a. Under B.P. No. 22 b. Estafa under the Revised Penal Code 3. Liability of Qualified - Indorser and One ___ Negotiating by Delivery 4. Liability of General or | Unqualified Indors 5. Liability of Restrictive Indorser 6. Order of Liability Among Indorsers G. Liability of Accommodation Party af | Sec. 65 NIL Secs 187, 188, | 189 NIL ‘Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, Supreme Court Administrative | | Circular No. 13-2001 Secs 66, 67, | 63, 40. NIL, ~[Sec. 68 NIL Secs. 29, 63, 64 NIL 14. New Pacific Timber v. Seneris, L-41764, December 19, 1980, 101 SCRA 686 12. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Malolos Inc v. IAC, G.R. No, 7211, November 16, 1990 Section 187 13. Panlilio vs. David 50 Phil. 105 14. New Pacific Timber vs. Seneris 101 SCRA 686 PNB vs. Nat'l City Bank of NY 63 Phil. 711 Araneta vs. Paz Tuazon 91 Phil. 786 17. Equitable PCi Bank vs. Ong 502 SCRA 119 18, SBTC vs. RCBC 577 SCRA 407 Section 189 15, 16. 19. Tanvs.CA 239 SCRA 310 | 20. Villanueva vs. Nite 496 SCRA 459 21. Miranda vs. PDIC, BSP and Prime 501 _ SCRA 288 _ PNB v. Picornell, 46 Phil. 716 (1922) Banco Atlantico v. Auditor General, L-33549 January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 335 22. 23. Aguirre v. People, 363 SCRA 672 (2001) Recuerdo v. People, 395 SCRA 638 (2003) People v. Nitafan, G.R. No. 75954, October 22, 1992, 215 SCRA 79 24 25. 26. 27. Adolph Ramish, Inc. v. Woodruff, 2 Cal. 2d 190, 28 P. 2d 360 (1934) __ Prudencio v. Court of Appeals, L-34339 July 1, 1986, 143 SCRA7 28 2~ | Rules of Court | ATTORNEY'S OATH (RoC), (included in all weekly quizzes, | Appendix: mid-term exam, and final Legal and exam) Judicial Forms, Form 28 Attorney's | Oath Ateneo de Manila University — School of Law Students’ Handbook vi On Code of Conduct General Principles 1.2Dedication to study, integrity, good judgment, and courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Law students, 1.3As students of the law and future lawyers, it is imperative that all Ateneo Law students respect authority and strictly observe all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Dress Code Student Identification Cards Offenses 44 Any of the following acts, or those similar thereto, shall constitute @ ground for reprimand, suspension, denial of re-enrollment, dismissal or expulsion, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense: 4.4.8 Plagiarism as defined in the Ateneo Law School Plagiarism Policies and Disciplinary Procedures 4.49 Cheating in written examinations and / or during oral recitations, without prejudice to academic sanctions which may be imposed. 4411 Violation of the standards of professional ethics established for lawyers or commission of acts which otherwise adversely reflects on the fitness of the students for admission to the bar. 4.4.19 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit. 4.4.22 Any other acts similar or analogous to the foregoing