REMEDIOS NOTA SAPIERA vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and RAMON SUA

G.R. No. 128927.  September 14, 1999
BELLOSILLO, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner Sapiera was issued by Arturo de Guzman checks as payment
for purchases he made at her store.  She used these checks to pay for the
items she bought from Ramon Sua’s store.  These checks were signed at the
back by petitioner.  When presented for payment the checks were
dishonored because the drawer’s account was already closed.  Sua informed
Arturo de Guzman and petitioner about the dishonor but both failed to pay
the value of the checks.  Petitioner was acquitted for the charge of estafa by
the RTC, but she was found liable for the value of the checks by the Court of
Appeals. Thus, this petition. 

ISSUE:
Is petitioner liable for the value of the checks despite signing the
subject checks only for the identification of the signature of Arturo de
Guzman?

RULING:
Yes, despite being acquitted from her criminal liabilities, petitioner is
still liable for the value of the checks as she has made herself an unqualified
endorser.  As Sapiera signed the subject checks on the reverse side without
any indication as to how she should be bound thereby, she is deemed to be
an indorser thereof according to Sec. 17 of the NIL which tackles
construction when instrument is ambiguous. 
According to Sec. 66 of the NIL, every indorser who indorses without
qualification, warrants to all subsequent holders in due course that, on due
presentment, it shall be accepted or paid or both, according to its tenor, and
that if it be dishonored and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly
taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder or to any subsequent
indorser who may be compelled to pay it.