Case: Samson Ching v. Clarita Nicado and CA G.R. No.

141181

Date: April 27, 2007 Ponente: J. Callejo, Sr.

TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Negotiable Instruments Law; Incomplete and Undelivered Instruments

Summary: Samson Ching sued Clarita Nicdao for violation of BP 22 allegedly because the checks issued by
Nicdao amounting to 20,950,000.00 pesos bounced. Nicdao was acquitted on the ground that the alleged
checks were stolen and was never issued by Nicdao. As regards the civil liability of Nicdao, the SC sustained
the finding of the CA that the checks were not complete and delivered by Nicdao. The checks were stolen and
without details as to the date, amount and payee. It was an incomplete and undelivered instrument
when it was stolen and ended up in petitioner Chings hands. Thus, Ching did not acquire any right or
interest therein and could not assert any cause of action founded on the stolen checks.

FACTS:
 Samson Ching sued Clarita Nicdao for violation of BP 22 allegedly because the checks issued by
Nicdao amounting to 20,950,000.00 pesos bounced. Nicdao was acquitted on the ground that the
alleged checks were stolen and was never issued by Nicdao.
 The checks were issued as security for the loans obtained by Nicdao from Ching in 1995 when
Nicdao’s business was suffering from financial distress. The parties agreed that the checks would be
left undated and that the loans will be paid within one (1) year.
 Nicdao denied borrowing from Ching although she admitted that she borrowed from a certain Nuguid.
During trial, Nicdao stated that she had no idea how the check came into Ching’s possession. She
also states that when she was about to pay Nuguid, the latter refused to give back the check she
issued as security of the loan.
 MCTC up to the CA: acquitted Nicdao. The CA made a finding that there is no basis to hold Nicdao
liable because the check was a stolen check which was never issued nor delivered by Nicdao to
Ching. Thus, Ching never acquired any right or interest over the Check and cannot assert any cause of
action founded on the said check. Nicdao has no obligation to make good the stolen check and cannot
therefore be held liable for violation of BP 22.

ISSUES:
1. WON a possessor of a check allegedly stolen may enforce the latter against its alleged issuer? NO.
HELD:
1. The CA emphasized that the P20,000,000.00 check was never delivered by respondent Nicdao to
petitioner Ching. As such, the said check without the details as to the date, amount and payee, was
an incomplete and undelivered instrument when it was stolen and ended up in petitioner Chings
hands.  The CA held that the P20,000,000.00 check was filled up by petitioner Ching without
respondent Nicdaos authority. Further, it was incomplete and undelivered. Hence, petitioner Ching did
not acquire any right or interest therein and could not assert any cause of action founded on the stolen
checks.

Ryan Malit CASE 051