BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND

CHECKS
BILL OF EXCHANGE

• A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing

addressed by one person to another, signed by the person
giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to
pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time
a sum certain in money to order or to bearer. (Negotiable
Instruments Law, Sec.126)
CHECK

• A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable

on demand. (Negotiable Instruments Law, Sec.185)
PARTIES
• Promissory Note:
(1) Maker and (2) Payee
• Bill of Exchange:
(1) Drawer, (2) Payee, and (3) Drawee / Acceptor
• Checks:
(1) Drawer, (2) Payee, and (3) Drawee Bank
SITUATION 1:

• ANDRES borrows Php 50 Million from JOSE

• ANDRES pays JOSE Php 50 Million in CASH
• Obligation to pay settled
SITUATION 2:

• ANDRES borrows Php 50 Million from JOSE

• ANDRES does not have the money to pay JOSE
• Obligation to pay remains
• ANDRES (maker) may execute a PROMISSORY
NOTE in favor of JOSE (payee)
SITUATION 3:

• ANDRES borrows Php 50 Million from JOSE

• JOSE purchases a ROLEX watch worth Php 50
Million from MARCELO
• JOSE does not have the money to pay MARCELO
• JOSE may order ANDRES to pay MARCELO Php 50
Million by executing a BILL OF EXCHANGE
 FORM (NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW
SEC.1)
• Section 1. Form of negotiable instruments. - An instrument to be negotiable must
conform to the following requirements:
• (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in
money;
(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;
(d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and
(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or
otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.
PROMISSORY NOTE VS. BILL OF EXCHANGE

Promise to Pay Order to Pay

PROMISSORY NOTE VS. BILL OF EXCHANGE
3 Parties
2 Parties
DRAWER
MAKER
DRAWEE
PAYEE
PAYEE
PROMISSORY NOTE VS. BILL OF EXCHANGE

Acceptance by the
No Acceptance
DRAWEE is
Necessary. The
absolutely
maker is absolutely
necessary to make
liable to pay.
him liable to pay.
PROMISSORY NOTE VS. BILL OF EXCHANGE

Liability of maker: Liability of drawer:

PRIMARY and SECONDARY and
ABSOLUTE CONDITIONAL
PROMISSORY NOTE VS. BILL OF EXCHANGE

Written by the Drawn by a

DEBTOR. CREDITOR
PROMISSORY NOTE VS. BILL OF EXCHANGE

Maker and Payee are in Drawer of the bill stands

IMMEDIATE RELATION to in immediate relationship
each other. with the DRAWEE and
PAYEE
PROMISSORY NOTE VS. BILL OF EXCHANGE
Drawee and
Cannot be made
Payee may be
payable to
one and the
maker himself
same person
OTHER TYPES OF BILL OF EXCHANGE

1.) Draft: normally refers to bills of exchange used in documentary

exchanges, like letters of credit transactions.

2.) Inland and Foreign Bill: inland bills are bills that are drawn and
payable in the Philippines. If the bill is drawn and payable
elsewhere, it's a foreign bill.
OTHER TYPES OF BILL OF EXCHANGE

3.) Time Draft: drafts payable at a fixed date.

4.) Sight/Demand Draft: draft payable when the holder presents it

for payment.
OTHER TYPES OF BILL OF EXCHANGE

5.) Trade Acceptance: A draft drawn by the seller on the purchaser

of goods sold showing on its face the acceptance of the purchaser
and that it has arisen out of a purchase of goods by the acceptor

6.) Banker's Acceptance: Drawn against the bank instead of the

buyer
OTHER TYPES OF BILL OF EXCHANGE

• 7.) Check: the most common negotiable instrument. Bill of

exchange drawn on a bank and payable on demand.
 CHECK VS. BILL OF EXCHANGE
Always drawn upon a bank or banker May or may not be drawn against a bank
May be payable on demand or at a fixed or
Always payable on demand
determinable future time
Not necessary that it be presented for
Necessary that it be presented for acceptance
acceptance
Drawn on a deposit Not drawn on a deposit
The death of a drawer of a check, with
The death of the drawer of the ordinary bill
knowledge by the banks, revokes the
of exchange does not
authority of the banker to pay
Must be presented for payment within a May be presented for payment within a
reasonable time after its issue (6 months) reasonable time after its last negotiation.
KINDS OF CHECKS
BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA V. SCREENEX, INC.

• FACTS: Evangelista obtained a loan from Screenex which issued 2 checks to the
former. There were also vouchers of Screenex that were signed by the accused
evidencing that he received the 2 checks in acceptance of the loan granted to him.
As security for the payment, Evangelista gave 2 open-dated checks, both pay to
order of Screenex. From the time it was issued, they were held in safekeeping
together with the other documents and papers of the company by Philip Gotuaco, Sr.,
father-in-law of respondent Alexander Yu, until the former’s death. Before the checks
were deposited, there was a personal demand from the family for Evangelista to
settle the loan and a demand letter was sent by the family lawyer.
BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA V. SCREENEX, INC.

• Evangelista was charged with violation of BP 22 in a criminal case filed with the
MeTC of Makati. The MeTC found that the prosecution had indeed proved the first 2
elements of cases involving BP 22 but failed to prove the 3rd element. Also, there
was failure on the part of Yu to prove that the demand letter had actually been
received by the addressee and there was no way to determine when the 5-day
period should start to toll, there was failure to establish prima facie evidence of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds, hence, the court acquitted Evangelista of the
criminal charges. Ruling on the civil aspect, the court held that while Evangelista
admitted to having issued and delivered the checks to Gotuaco and having fully
paid the amount, no evidence of payment was presented. In the end, Evangelista was
declared liable for the civil obligation.
 BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA V. SCREENEX, INC.
• Timely appeal was made to the RTC raising two errors of the MeTC, to wit: 1) Lower
court erred in not appreciating the fact that the prosecution failed to prove the civil
liability and 2) any civil liability attributable to Evangelista had been extinguished by
prescription. RTC held that the checks should be taken as evidence of Evangelista’s
indebtedness to prove that the obligation subsisted. Also, the alleged payment by
Evangelista was an affirmative defense that he had the burden of proving but that he
failed to discharge.
• CA, upon petition for review, denied the same. It held that the reckoning time for the
prescriptive period began when the instrument was issued and the corresponding check
returned by the bank to its depositor; that the issue of prescription was raised for the
first time on appeal; and that the loan obligation was never denied by Evangelista,
who claimed it was already settled, but failed to show any proof of payment.
 BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA V. SCREENEX, INC.
• ISSUE: Whether or not Evangelista is still liable for the total amount indicated in the 2
checks?
• HELD: NO. By definition, a check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on
demand. It is an undertaking that the drawer will pay the amount indicated thereon. Sec
119 of the NIL, however, states that a negotiable instrument like a check may be
discharged by any other act which will discharge a simple contract for the payment of
money. A check is therefore subject to a 10-year prescription of actions upon a written
contract. If the check is undated as in the present case, the cause of action is reckoned
from the issuance of the check. Assuming that Yu had authority to insert the dates in the
checks, the fact that he did so after the lapse of more than 10 years cannot qualify as
changes made within a reasonable period. The cause of action on the checks has
become stale, hence time-barred. Prescription has indeed set in.
 BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA V. SCREENEX, INC.
• Therefore there is no other recourse but to grant the petition on the ground of
prescription. Even if the defense was belatedly raised before the RTC for the first time on
appeal from the ruling of MeTC, the supreme court nonetheless dismissed the complaint
seeking to enforce civil liability of Evangelista based on the undated checks.
• The acceptance of a check implies an undertaking of due diligence in presenting it for
payment, and if he from whom it is received sustains loss by want of such diligence, it will
be held to operate as actual payment of the debt or obligation for which it was given.
• The SC held that the delivery of the checks, despite the subsequent failure to encash them
within a period of 10 years or more, had the effect of payment. Petitioner is considered
discharged from his obligation to pay and can no longer be pronounced civilly liable for
the amounts indicated thereon