CRUZ, SUZANNE P. CASE NO.

14

LEE VS. CA

FACTS:

Mico Metals Corporation issued a Board Resolution approving and authorizing the Lee and Sio to
negotiate in behalf of the Corporation tro negotiate and secure commercial loans and other
commercial transactions and accommodations from bank. The loand were credited in the current
account of the Corporation. MICO also applied for domestic and foreign letters of credit, which were
negotiated and accepted by MICO as evidenced by corresponding bank drafts.

ISSUE:

Whether the letters of credit, trust receipts, and drafts in connection with letters of credit are
negotiable under NIL?

RULING:

Letters of Credit and Trust Receipts are not Negotiable, but Drafts issued in connection with Letters
of Credit is NEGOTIABLE.

Under Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court the following presumptions, among others, are
satisfactory if uncontradicted: a) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract and b)
That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for sufficient consideration. As observed by the
Court of Appeals, a similar presumption is found in Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law
which provides that every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for
valuable consideration and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party
for value. Negotiable instruments which are meant to be substitutes for money, must conform to
the following requisites to be considered as such a) it must be in writing; b) it must be signed by the
maker or drawer; c) it must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in
money; d) it must be payable on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time; e) it must be
payable to order or bearer; and f) where it is a bill of exchange, the drawee must be named or
otherwise indicated with reasonable certainty. Negotiable instruments include promissory notes,
bills of exchange and checks. Letters of credit and trust receipts are, however, not negotiable
instruments. But drafts issued in connection with letters of credit are negotiable instruments.

While the presumption found under the Negotiable Instruments Law may not necessarily be applicable
to trust receipts and letters of credit, the presumption that the drafts drawn in connection with the
letters of credit have sufficient consideration. Under Section 3(r), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court there is
also a presumption that sufficient consideration was given in a contract. Hence, petitioners should have
presented credible evidence to rebut that presumption as well as the evidence presented by private
respondent PBCom. The letters of credit show that the pertinent materials/merchandise have been
received by MICO. The drafts signed by the beneficiary/suppliers in connection with the corresponding
letters of credit proved that said suppliers were paid by PBCom for the account of MICO. On the other
hand, aside from their bare denials petitioners did not present sufficient and competent evidence to
rebut the evidence of private respondent PBCom. Petitioner MICO did not proffer a single piece of
evidence, apart from its bare denials, to support its allegation that the loan transactions, real estate
mortgage, letters of credit and trust receipts were issued allegedly without any consideration.
In fact, the issue of lack of valuable consideration for the issuance of checks which were later on
dishonored for insufficient funds is immaterial to the success of a prosecution for violation of B.P. Big.
27.