inserting his or her name (officer or secre-

tary), the defense is also personal under Sec-

tion 14. Comparative negligence rule also
applies against the drawer (1997 and 2008
Bar).
PR
EXAMPLE:
Blank checks were entrusted to NG with the specific instruction
not to fill them out without previous notification to and approval by the
drawer, AP so that AP could verify the validity of the payment and make
the proper arrangements to fund the account. Instead, NG delivered the
checks to Mr. M as a security for a loan. Mr. M had knowledge that the
petitioner is not privy to the loan. AP can invoke against Mr. M, who is
not a holder in due course, the defense that the check was not completed
strictly under the authority given by AP. NG has exceeded the authority
to fill up the blanks and use the check. AP gave NG pre-signed checks
to be used in their business provided that he could only use them upon
his approval. NG's authority was limited to the use of the checks for the
operation of their business, and on the condition that the petitioner's
prior approval be first secured. (Patrimonio 0. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 187769,
Tune 4, 2014).
b)
C)
Complete and Delivered. Delivery is essential
to the validity of any negotiable instrument. As
between immediate parties and those who are
similarly situated, delivery must be coupled with
the intention of transferring title to the instrument.
(1)
However, if the instrument is in the hands of
a holder in due course, valid delivery to him
is conclusively presumed (Ubas. Sr. v. Chan,
February 6, 2017; Asia Brewery v. Equitable PCI
Bank, April 25, 2017).
(2) The
defense of want of delivery
or
conditional delivery or delivery for a special
purpose only of a complete instrument is
only a personal defense (Sec. 16, NIL).
Incomplete not Delivered. Non-delivery of an
incomplete instrument is a real defense (Sec. 15,
NIL) (1978, 1982, 1985, 2000, and 2006 Bar).