G.R. No. 112985 April 21, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. MARTIN L. ROMERO and ERNESTO C.

RODRIGUEZ, accused-appellants. Facts: San Andres Industrial Development Corporation SAIDECOR engaged in soliciting funds and investments from the public. The corporation guaranteed an 800% return on investment within fifteen (15) or twenty one (21) days. Investors were given coupons containing the capital and the return on the capital collectible on the date agreed upon. Complainant Ernesto A. Ruiz went to SAIDECOR office in Butuan City to make an investment, After handing over the amount of P150,000.00 to Ernesto Rodriguez, complainant received a postdated Butuan City Rural Bank check instead of the usual redeemable coupon. The check indicated P1,000,200.00 as the amount in words, but the amount in figures was for P1,200,000.00, as the return on the investment. Compliant did not notice the discrepancy. When the check was presented to the bank for payment, it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by the check return slip issued by the bank. Both accused could not be located and demand for payment was made only during the preliminary investigation of this case. Accused responded that they had no money. On November 13, 1992, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts, signed only by their respective counsels. Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision. RTC convicted the accused. The accused appealed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was correct in contending that if the trial court followed the admission and stipulation of facts submitted by them, it would prove that there was sufficient funds. RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the appealed judgment. HELD: Accused relies on the fact that there was a discrepancy between the amount in words and the amount in figures in the check that was dishonored. The amount in words was P1,000,200.00, while the amount in figures was P1,200,000.00. It is admitted that the corporation had in the bank P1,144,760.00 on September 28, 1989, and P1,124,307.14 on April 2, 1990. The check was presented for payment on October 5, 1989. The rule in the Negotiable Instruments Law is that when there is ambiguity in the amount in words and the amount in figures, it would be the amount in words that would prevail. However, this rule of interpretation finds no application in the case. The agreement was perfectly clear that at the end of twenty one (21) days, the investment of P150,000.00 would become P1,200,000.00. Even if the trial court admitted the stipulation of facts, it would not be favorable to accused.

Fojas-Arca purchased on credit firestone products from petitioner with a total amount of P4. FACTS: Fojas-Arca Enterprises Company maintained a special account with respondent Luzon Development Bank which authorized and allowed the former to withdraw funds from its account through the medium of special withdrawal slips. In payment of these purchases. petitioner. COURT OF APPEALS and LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK. G. Citibank was not bound to accept the withdrawal slips as a valid mode of deposit. these were deposited by the petitioner with its current account with the Citibank. due to its allegedly belated notice of non-payment of the subject withdrawal slips. in a subsequent transaction involving the payment of withdrawal slips by Fojas-Arca for purchases on credit from petitioner. All of them were honored and paid by the respondent bank. The withdrawal slips in question lacked this character.078. In turn. But having erroneously accepted them as such. Payment or notice of dishonor from respondent bank could not be expected immediately.092. in contrast to the situation involving checks. However.00. .80 were dishonored and not paid by respondent bank for the reason "NO ARRANGEMENT". Petitioner's complaint for a sum of money and damages with the Regional Trial Court was dismissed. The respondent bank was under no obligation to give immediate notice that it would not make payment on the subject withdrawal slips. Petitioner and Citibank could not now shift the risk and hold private respondent liable for their admitted mistake. Citibank – and petitioner as account-holder – must bear the risks attendant to the acceptance of these instruments. CA affirmed the decision. respondents. No. Citibank should have known that withdrawal slips were not negotiable instruments.896. FojasArca delivered to petitioner six special withdrawal slips drawn upon the respondent bank.000. the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. As the withdrawal slips in question were non-negotiable. HELD: The essence of negotiability which characterizes a negotiable paper as a credit instrument lies in its freedom to circulate freely as a substitute for money. 2001 FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES.Whether or not respondent bank should be held liable for damages suffered by petitioner.R. vs. 113236 March 5. ISSUE: RULING: WHEREFORE. the rules governing the giving of immediate notice of dishonor of negotiable instruments do not apply. two withdrawal slips for the total sum of P2. It could not expect these slips to be treated as checks by other entities.

Ong. represented by its President and General Manager private respondent Ong where HCCC agreed to undertake the construction of 35 housing units and the development of 35 hectares of land.The RTC ruled in favor of the private respondent. 1999 ADALIA FRANCISCO. Ong discovered that Francisco and Diaz. Instead. had executed and signed seven checks of various dates and amounts payable to HCCC for completed and delivered work under the contract. entered into a Land Development and Construction Contract with private respondent Herby Commercial & Construction Corporation (HCCC). RULING: FACTS:. of which petitioner Francisco is the president. Adalia Francisco Realty & Development Corporation (AFRDC). HCCC was to be paid on the basis of the completed houses and developed lands delivered to and accepted by AFRDC and the GSIS. claims that these checks were never delivered to HCCC. Petitioner however claims that she was authorized to sign Ong's name on the checks by virtue of the Certification executed by Ong in her favor giving her the authority to collect all the receivables of HCCC from the GSIS. Upon inquiry with Diaz. 116320 November 29. Ong learned that the GSIS gave Francisco custody of the checks since she promised that she would deliver the same to HCCC.R. at the dorsal portion of the said checks to make it appear that HCCC had indorsed the checks. Francisco forged the signature of Ong. without his knowledge or consent. Under the contract. the VicePresident of GSIS. . petitioner. HERBY COMMERCIAL & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND JAIME C. The CA affirmed the trial court's ruling. however. including the questioned checks.G. A case was brought by private respondents against petitioner to recover the value of said checks. ONG. vs. COURT OF APPEALS. Francisco then indorsed the checks for a second time by signing her name at the back of the checks and deposited the checks in her savings account. Sometime in 1979.respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner cannot be held liable on the questioned checks by virtue of the Certification executed by Ong giving her the authority to collect such checks from the GSIS. No.

. otherwise he shall be held personally liable. Even assuming that Francisco was authorized by HCCC to sign Ong's name. HELD: Petitioner is liable. when so signing. the Certification cannot be used by Francisco to validate her act of forgery. still. Thus. Francisco did not indorse the instrument in accordance with law.WHEREFORE. he may indorse in such terms as to negative personal liability. should indicate that he is merely signing in behalf of the principal and must disclose the name of his principal. Instead of signing Ong's name. we AFFIRM the respondent court's decision. An agent. The Negotiable Instruments Law provides that where any person is under obligation to indorse in a representative capacity. Francisco should have signed her own name and expressly indicated that she was signing as an agent of HCCC.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful