Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digest Sesbreno Vs CA
Digest Sesbreno Vs CA
petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS
BANK, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner then issued a demand letter to private respondent Pilipinas Bank, but the note
was never released nor any instrument related thereto. Petitioner also made a written
demand upon private respondent Delta as maker for the partial satisfaction of DMC PN No.
2731, explaining that Philfinance, as payee thereof, had assigned to him said Note. Delta,
however, denied any liability to petitioner on the promissory note.
As petitioner had failed to collect his investment and interest thereon, he filed an action
for damages with the RTC against private respondents Delta and Pilipinas. The complaint was
dismissed and was affirmed by the CA on appeal.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Only an instrument qualifying as a negotiable instrument under the relevant statute may
be negotiated either by indorsement thereof coupled with delivery or by delivery alone where the
negotiable instrument is in bearer form. A negotiable instrument may, however, instead of being
negotiated, also be assigned or transferred. The legal consequences of negotiation as
distinguished from assignment of a negotiable instrument are, of course, different. A non-
negotiable instrument may, obviously, not be negotiated; but it may be assigned or transferred,
absent an express prohibition against assignment or transfer written in the face of the
instrument.
In this case, while the promissory note was marked "non-negotiable," it was not at the
same time stamped "non-transferable" or "non-assignable." Hence, there is no stipulation which
prohibited the promissory note’s assigning or transferring, in whole or in part.