Negotiable Instruments - Annotated

Copyright 2015 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2014 1

Act No. 2031 - Negotiable Instruments Law

Sec. 1 - Form of Negotiable Instruments

Freedom of negotiability is totally absent in a certificate of indebtedness.

The language of negotiability which characterizes a negotiable paper as a creditinstrument is its freedom to circulate as a substitute for money. Hence, freedom ofnegotiability is the touchstone relating to the protection of holders in due course, andthe freedom of negotiability is the foundation for the protection which the law throwsaround a holder in due course. This freedom of negotiability is totally absent in acertificate of indebtedness as it merely acknowledges to pay a sum of money to aspecified person or entity for a period of time.

Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93397, March 3, 1997

Negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is determined from the face ofthe instrument itself.

The accepted rule is that the negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument isdetermined from the writing, that is, from the face of the instrument itself. In theconstruction of a bill or note, the intention of the parties is to control, if it can belegally ascertained. While the writing may be read in the light of surroundingcircumstances in order to more perfectly understand the intent and meaning of theparties, yet as they have constituted the writing to be the only outward and visibleexpression of their meaning, no other words are to be added to it or substituted in itsstead.

Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97753, August 10, 1992

When treasury warrant is not unconditional.

A treasury warrant "payable from the appropriation for food administration," isactually an order for payment out of "a particular fund," and is not unconditional, anddoes not fulfill one of the essential requirements of a negotiable instrument.

Benjamin Abubakar vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-1405, July 31, 1948


A negotiable instrument is a written evidence of contract and a species of property.

A negotiable instrument, of which a check is, is not only a written evidence of acontract right but is also a species of property.

Development Bank of Rizal vs. Sima Wei, G.R. No. 85419, March 9, 1993

Negotiable promissory notes are prima facie deemed to have been issued forconsideration.

The promissory notes, however, appear to be negotiable as they meet therequirements of Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Such being the case,the notes are prima facie deemed to have been issued for consideration.

Quirino Gonzales Logging Concessionaire vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126568, April30, 2003

Drafts issued in connection with letters of credit are negotiable instruments.

Negotiable instruments include promissory notes, bills of exchange and checks.Letters of credit and trust receipts are, however, not negotiable instruments. But draftsissued in connection with letters of credit are negotiable instruments.

Charles Lee vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No.117913, February 1, 2002

Indication of fund as source of payment makes order or promise to pay "notunconditional".

The indication of Fund 501 as the source of the payment to be made on the treasurywarrants makes the order or promise to pay "not unconditional" and the warrantsthemselves non-negotiable. There should be no question that the exception on Section3 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is applicable.

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88866, February18, 1991

Certificates of Time Deposit are negotiable instruments.

The Certificates of Time Deposit are negotiable instruments. The documents


provide that the amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor. And who,according to the document, is the depositor? It is the "bearer." The documents do notsay that the depositor is Angel de la Cruz and that the amounts deposited arerepayable specifically to him. Rather, the amounts are to be repayable to the bearer ofthe documents or, for that matter, whosoever may be the bearer at the time ofpresentment.

Caltex (Phil.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 97753, August 10, 1992

Instrument without words of negotiability is non-negotiable.

Without the words "or order" or "to the order of", the instrument is payable only tothe person designated therein and is therefore non-negotiable. Any subsequentpurchaser thereof will not enjoy the advantages of being a holder of a negotiableinstrument, but will merely "step into the shoes" of the person designated in theinstrument and will thus be open to all defenses available against the latter.

Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. vs. IFC Leasing and Acceptance Corp., G.R. No.72593, April 30, 1987

Certificates of stock are quasi-negotiable.

Certificates of stock are often spoken of and treated as quasi negotiable, that is, ashaving some of the attributes and partaking of the character of negotiable instruments,in passing from hand to hand, especially where they are accompanied by anassignment and power of attorney, executed in blank, to transfer them to anyone whomay obtain possession as holders, even though such assignment and power are underseal.

The Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. Mariano Lacson Ledesma, G.R. No. 42462, August31, 1937

Certificates of stock are non-negotiable.

A certificate of stock is not a negotiable instrument. Although it is sometimesregarded as quasi-negotiable, in the sense that it may be transferred by endorsement,coupled with delivery, it is well-settled that it is non-negotiable, because the holderthereof takes it without prejudice to such rights or defenses as the registered owners ortransferor's creditor may have under the law, except insofar as such rights or defensesare subject to the limitations imposed by the principles governing estoppel.


Apolinario G. de los Santos vs. J. Howard Mcgrath, G.R. No. L-4818, February 28, 1955

Alfonso S. Tan vs. SEC, G.R. No. 95696, March 3, 1992

Postal money orders are not negotiable instruments.

The weight of authority in the United States is that postal money orders are notnegotiable instruments, the reason behind this rule being that, in establishing andoperating a postal money order system, the government is not engaging in commercialtransactions but merely exercises a governmental power for the public benefit. It is tobe noted in this connection that some of the restrictions imposed upon money ordersby postal laws and regulations are inconsistent with the character of negotiableinstruments.

Philippine Education Co., Inc. vs. Mauricio A. Soriano, G.R. No. L-22405, June 30,1971

Impairment of negotiability of instrument by fault of creditor.

The clause of Article 1249 of the Civil Code relative to the impairment of thenegotiable character of the commercial paper by the fault of the creditor, is applicableonly to instruments executed by third persons and delivered by the debtor to thecreditor, and does not apply to instruments executed by the debtor himself anddelivered to the creditor.

National Marketing Corp. vs. Federation of United NAMARCO Distributors, Inc., G.R.No. L-22578, January 31, 1973

Negotiability of a check is not affected by its being crossed.

According to commentators, the negotiability of a check is not affected by its beingcrossed, whether specially or generally. It may legally be negotiated from one personto another as long as the one who encashes the check with the drawee bank is anotherbank, or if it is especially crossed, by the bank mentioned between the parallel lines.

Bataan Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Inc. vs. CA and State Investment House, Inc., G.R.No. 93048, March 3, 1994

Requisites of a negotiable instrument

Sps. Pedro and Florencia Violago vs. BA Finance Corp., et al., G.R. No. 158262, July


21, 2008

Sec. 2 - Certainty as to Sum; What Constitutes

Legality of stipulation on payment of attorney's fee in case of delinquency ofdebtor.

We are of the opinion that it may lawfully be stipulated in favor of the creditor,whether the obligation be evidenced by promissory note or otherwise, that in the eventthat it becomes necessary, by reason of the delinquency of the debtor, to employcounsel to enforce payment of the obligation, a reasonable attorney's fee shall be paidby the debtor, in addition to the amount due for principal and interest. The legality ofsuch a stipulation, when annexed to a negotiable instrument is expressly recognizedby the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031, Sec. 2, par. E).

E. M. Bachrach vs. Vicente Golingco, G.R. No. 13660, November 13, 1918

Sec. 3 - When Promise is Unconditional

Indication of particular fund as source of payment makes order or promise to pay"not unconditional".

The indication of Fund 501 as the source of the payment to be made on the treasurywarrants makes the order or promise to pay "not unconditional" and the warrantsthemselves non-negotiable.

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88866, February18, 1991

Order for payment out of certain appropriation is an order for payment out of aparticular fund.

The document bearing on its face the words "payable from the appropriation for


food administration" is actually an order for payment out of "a particular fund," and isnot unconditional, and does not fulfill one of the essential requirements of anegotiable instrument.

Benjamin Abubakar vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-1405, July 31, 1948

When acknowledgment of debt becomes promise to pay.

An acknowledgment of a debt becomes a promise to pay by the addition of wordsimplying a promise of payment, such as, "payable," "payable on a given day,""payable on demand".

Intestate Estate of Luther Young and Pacita Young, G.R. No. L-10221, February 28,1958

No precise words of contract are necessary to constitute a good promissory note.

To constitute a good promissory note, no precise words of contract are necessary,provided they amount, in legal effect, to a promise to pay. In other words, if over andabove the mere acknowledgment of the debt there may be collected from the wordsused a promise to pay it, the instrument may be regarded as a promissory note.

Intestate Estate of Luther Young and Pacita Young, G.R. No. L-10221, February 28,1958

Sec. 5 - Additional Provision Not Affecting Negotiability

Warrants of attorney to confess judgment are void as against public policy.

Warrants of attorney to confess judgment are not authorized nor contemplated byour law. Such warrants of attorney are void as against public policy, because theyenlarge the field for fraud, because under these instruments the promissor bargainsaway his right to a day in court, and because the effect of the instrument is to strikedown the right of appeal accorded by statute. The recognition of such form ofobligation would bring about a complete reorganization of commercial customs andpractices, with reference to short-term obligations. It can readily be seen thatjudgment notes, instead of resulting to the advantage of commercial life the


Philippines might be the source of abuse and oppression, and make the courtsinvoluntary parties thereto. If the bank has a meritorious case, the judgment isultimately certain in the courts.

PNB vs. Manila Oil Refining & By-Products Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-18103, June 8, 1922

Sec. 7 - When Payable on Demand

Prudential Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74886, December 8, 1992

Annex A, in effect, authorized the RFC to fix the date of maturity of theinstallments therein stipulated which is allowed by the Negotiable Instruments Lawand when a promissory note expresses "no time for payment," it is deemed "payableon demand."

Jose L. Ponce De Leon vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, G.R. No. L-24571,December 18, 1970

As the two promissory notes in question were payable on demand, the Court ofAppeals correctly held — that they were due immediately after delivery, and that thecorresponding period of prescription started to run from the date of such delivery.

Joseph Reich vs. Edmund Schwesinger, G.R. No. L-16525, January 31, 1963

Sec. 8 - When Payable to Order

Under Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, there are only two ways bywhich an instrument may be made payable to order. There must always be a specifiedperson named in the instrument and the bill or note is to be paid to the persondesignated in the instrument or to any person to whom he has indorsed and deliveredthe same. Without the words "or order" or "to the order of", the instrument is payableonly to the person designated therein and is therefore non-negotiable. Any subsequentpurchaser thereof will not enjoy the advantages of being a holder of a negotiableinstrument, but will merely "step into the shoes" of the person designated in the


instrument and will thus be open to all defenses available against the latter.

Consolidated Plywood Industries vs. IFC Leasing and Acceptance Corporation, G.R.No. 72593, April 30, 1987

Juanita Salas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76788, January 22, 1990

The subject check was equivocal and patently ambiguous. By making the checkread; "Pay to the EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION Order of A/C OFCASVILLE ENTERPRISES, INC." the payee ceased to be indicated with reasonablecertainty in contravention of Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

Equitable Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74451, May25, 1988

Sec. 9 - When Payable to Bearer

A check drawn payable to the order of "cash" is a check payable to bearer, and thebank may pay it to the person presenting it for payment without the drawer'sindorsement

Ang Tek Lian vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-2516, September 25, 1950

Bank incurs no liability if, satisfied with identity of bearer, it pays the checkwithout further question.

But where the Bank is satisfied of the identity and/or the economic standing of thebearer who tenders the check for collection, it will pay the instrument without furtherquestion; and it would incur no liability to the drawer in thus acting.

Ang Tek Lian vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-2516, September 25, 1950

Sec. 12 - Antedated and Postdated

Considering that the second element [of Theft] is that the thing taken belongs to


another, it is relevant to determine whether ownership of the subject check wastransferred to petitioner. . . . Note however that delivery as the term is used in theaforementioned provision (Sec. 12 of Act 2031) means that the party delivering did sofor the purpose of giving effect thereto. Otherwise, it cannot be said that there hasbeen delivery of the negotiable instrument. Once there is delivery, the person to whomthe instrument is delivered gets the title to the instrument completely and irrevocably. .. .

The evidence proves that the check was accepted, not as payment, but inaccordance with the long-standing policy of SMC to require its dealers to issuepostdated checks to cover its receivables. The check was only meant to cover thetransaction and in the meantime [respondent] was to pay for the transaction by someother means other than the check. This being so, title to the check did not transfer toSMC; it remained with [respondent]. The second element of the felony of theft wastherefore not established.

San Miguel Corp. vs. Bartolome Puzon, Jr., G.R. No. 167567 , September 22, 2010

Sec. 16 - Delivery; When Effectual; When Presumed

Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable untildelivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As ordinarilyunderstood, delivery means the transfer of the possession of the instrument by themaker or the drawer with intent to transfer title to the payee and recognize him as theholder thereof.

Loreto D. De La Victoria vs. Jose Burgos, G.R. No. 111190, June 27, 1995

Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable untildelivery of the instrument to the payee for the purpose of giving effect thereto. Thefirst delivery of the instrument, complete in form, to the payee who takes it as aholder, is called issuance of the instrument. Without the initial delivery of theinstrument from the drawer of the check to the payee, there can be no valid andbinding contract and no liability on the instrument.

Natividad Gempesaw vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92244, February 9, 1993


The payee of a negotiable instrument acquires no interest with respect thereto untilits delivery to him. Delivery of an instrument means transfer of possession, actual orconstructive, from one person to another. Without the initial delivery of the instrumentfrom the drawer to the payee, there can be no liability on the instrument. Moreover,such delivery must be intended to give effect to the instrument.

Development Bank of Rizal vs. Sima Wei, G.R. No. 85419, March 9, 1993

Sec. 17 - Construction Where Instrument is Ambiguous

In view of Section 17(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law and Article 1216 of theCivil Code, and as the promissory note was executed jointly and severally by the sameparties, the payee of the promissory note had the right to hold any one or any two ofthe signers of the promissory note responsible for the payment of the amount of thenote.

PNB vs. Concepcion Mining Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-16968, July 31, 1962

Courts can interpret a contract only if there is doubt in its letter.

Sps Eduardo and Epifania Evangelista vs. Mercator Finance Corp., G.R. No. 148864,August 21, 2003

Where a signature is so placed upon the instrument that it is not clear in whatcapacity the person making the same intended to sign, he is deemed an indorser.

Remedios Nota Sapiera vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128927, September 14, 1999

Sec. 20 - Liability of Person Signing as Agent, and So Forth

Failure to disclose principal renders agent personally liable for drafts he accepted.

An inspection of the drafts accepted by the defendant shows that nowhere has hedisclosed that he was signing as representative of the Philippine Education Foundation


Company. For failure to disclose his principal, Aruego is personally liable for thedrafts he accepted.

Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Jose M. Aruego, G.R. Nos. L-25836-37, January 31,1981

Salesman authorized to collect money does not have implied authority to indorsechecks received in payment.

The right of an agent to indorse commercial paper is a very responsible power andwill not be lightly inferred. A salesman with authority to collect money belonging tohis principal does not have the implied authority to indorse checks received inpayment. Any person taking checks made payable to a corporation which can act byagents, does so at his peril, and must abide by the consequences if the agent whoendorses the same is without authority.

Jai-alai Corp. of the Phil. vs. BPI, G.R. No. L-29432, August 6, 1975

Insular Drug Co., Inc. vs. PNB, G.R. No. 38816, November 3, 1933

Sec. 23 - Forged Signature; Effect of

As a matter of practical significance, problems arising from forged indorsements ofchecks may generally be broken into two types of cases: (1) where forgery wasaccomplished by a person not associated with the drawer — for example a mailrobbery; and (2) where the indorsement was forged by an agent of the drawer. Thisdifference in situations would determine the effect of the drawer's negligence withrespect to forged indorsements. While there is no duty resting on the depositor to lookfor forged indorsements on his cancelled checks in contrast to a duty imposed uponhim to look for forgeries of his own name, a depositor is under a duty to set up anaccounting system and a business procedure as are reasonably calculated to prevent orrender difficult the forgery of indorsements, particularly by the depositor's ownemployees. And if the drawer (depositor) learns that a check drawn by him has beenpaid under a forged indorsement, the drawer is under duty promptly to report such factto the drawee bank.



If a bank pays a forged check, it must be considered as paying out of its funds andcannot charge the amount so paid to the account of the depositor.

Traders Royal Bank vs. Radio Philippines Network, G.R. No. 138510, October 10, 2002

The Philippine National Bank had no license or authority to pay the money toMaasim or anyone else upon a forged signature. It was its legal duty to know thatMelicor's endorsement was genuine before cashing the check. Its remedy is againstMaasim to whom it paid the money.

Great Eastern Life Insurance Co. vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., G.R. No.18657, August 23, 1922

There are two (2) parts of the provision. The first part states the general rule whilethe second part states the exception to the general rule. The general rule is to the effectthat a forged signature is "wholly inoperative", and payment made "through or undersuch signature" is ineffectual or does not discharge the instrument. The exception tothis rule is when the party relying on the forgery is "precluded from setting up theforgery or want of authority." In this jurisdiction we recognize negligence of the partyinvoking forgery as an exception to the general rule. (See Banco de Oro Savings andMortgage Bank vs. Equitable Banking Corporation supra; Philippine National Bankvs. Quimpo, G.R. No. L-53194, March 14, 1988; Philippine National Bank vs. Courtof Appeals, G.R. No. L-26001, October 29, 1968; Republic vs. Equitable BankingCorporation, G.R. No. L-15894, January 30, 1964; National Bank vs. National CityBank of New York, 63 Phil. 711 [1936]; San Carlos Milling Co. vs. Bank of P.I., 59Phil. 59 [1933]). In these cases we determined the rights and liabilities of the partiesunder a forged endorsement by looking at the legal effects of the relative negligenceof the parties thereto.

Bank of the Phil. Islands vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102383, November 26, 1992

The petitioner is barred from setting up the defense of forgery under Section 23 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Law . . . [b]ecause it was guilty of negligence not onlybefore the questioned checks were negotiated but even after the same had alreadybeen negotiated.

Republic of the Phil. vs. Equitable Banking Corporation, G.R. No. L-15894, January 30,1964

Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.L-62943, July 14, 1986


It is apparent that the said three (3) checks were fraudulently altered as to theiramounts and, therefore, wholly inoperative. No right of payment thereof against anyparty thereto could have been acquired the petitioner.

Banco Atlantico vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-33549, January 31, 1978

A forged signature in a negotiable instrument is wholly inoperative and no right todischarge it or enforce its payment can be acquired through or under the forgedsignature except against a party who cannot invoke the forgery, it stands to reason,that the respondent, as a collecting bank which indorsed the checks to thedrawee-banks for clearing, should be liable to the latter for reimbursement, for, asfound by the court a quo and by the appellate court, the indorsements on the checkshad been forged prior to their delivery to the petitioner.

Jai-alai Corporation of the Philippines vs. Bank of the Philippine Island, G.R. No.L-29432, August 6, 1975

Where the signature on a negotiable instrument is forged, the negotiation of thecheck is without force of effect. But the existence of the forged signature therein willnot render void all the other negotiations of the check with respect to the other partieswhose signatures are genuine. It is only the negotiation predicated on the forgedindorsement that should be declared inoperative.

Republic Bank vs. Mauricia T. Ebrada, G.R. No. L-40796, July 31, 1975

The signatures to the checks being forged, under section 23 of the NegotiableInstruments Law they are not a charge against plaintiff nor are the checks of any valueto the defendant.

San Carlos Milling Co. vs. BPI, G.R. No. 37467, December 11, 1933

True, it is a rule that when a signature is forged or made without the authority ofthe person whose signature it purports to be, the check is wholly inoperative. No rightto retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereofagainst any party, can be acquired through or under such signature. However, the ruledoes provide for an exception, namely: "unless the party against whom it is sought toenforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority."

Ramon K. Ilusorio vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139130, November 27, 2002

Since the signature of the payee, in the case at bar, was forged to make it appearthat he had made an endorsement in favor of the forger, such signature should be


deemed as inoperative and ineffectual. Petitioner, as the collecting bank, grossly erredin making payment by virtue of said forged signature. The payee, herein respondent,should therefore be allowed to recover from the collecting bank.

The collecting bank is liable to the payee and must bear the loss because it is itslegal duty to ascertain that the payee's endorsement was genuine before cashing thecheck. As a general rule, a bank or corporation who has obtained possession of acheck upon an unauthorized or forged indorsement of the payee's signature and whocollects the amount of the check from the drawee, is liable for the proceeds thereof tothe payee or other owner, notwithstanding that the amount has been paid to the personfrom whom the check was obtained.

Westmont Bank vs. Eugene Ong, G.R. No. 132560, January 30, 2002

A forged signature, whether it be that of the drawer or the payee, is whollyinoperative and no one can gain title to the instrument through it. A person whosesignature to an instrument was forged was never a party and never consented to thecontract which allegedly gave rise to such instrument. Section 23 does not avoid theinstrument but only the forged signature. Thus, a forged indorsement does not operateas the payee's indorsement.

The exception to the general rule in Section 23 is where "a party against whom it issought to enforce a right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want ofauthority." Parties who warrant or admit the genuineness of the signature in questionand those who, by their acts, silence or negligence are estopped from setting up thedefense of forgery, are precluded from using this defense. Indorsers, personsnegotiating by delivery and acceptors are warrantors of the genuineness of thesignatures on the instrument.

Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107382, January 31, 1996

PNB vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107612, January 31, 1996

A bank is bound to know the signatures of its customers.

A bank is bound to know the signatures of its customers; and if it pays a forgedcheck, it must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds, and cannotordinarily charge the amount so paid to the account of the depositor whose name wasforged.

San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. vs. BPI, G.R. No. 37467, December 11, 1933


Drawee bank paying a forged check cannot recover from holder who took no partin the forgery.

If a drawee bank pays a forged check which was previously accepted or certified bythe said bank it cannot recover from a holder who did not participate in the forgeryand did not have actual notice thereof.

PNB vs. The National City Bank of New York, G.R. No. 43596, October 31, 1936

Requisites to entitle the holder of a forged check to retain money obtained thereon.

To entitle the holder of a forged check to retain the money obtained thereon, theremust be a showing that the duty to ascertain the genuineness of the signature restedentirely upon the drawee, and that the constructive negligence of such drawee infailing to detect the forgery was not affected by any disregard of duty on the part ofthe holder, or by failure of any precaution which, from his implied assertion inpresenting the check as a sufficient voucher, the drawee had the right to believe hehad taken.


Drawee bank may require indorsement of drawer.

If the bank is not sure of the bearer's identity or financial solvency, it has the rightto demand identification and/or assurance against possible complications, - forinstance, (a) forgery of drawer's signature, (b) loss of the check by the rightful owner,(c) raising of the amount payable, etc. The bank may therefore require, for itsprotection, that the indorsement of the drawer - or of some other person known to it -be obtained.

Ang Tek Lian vs. CA, G.R. No. L-2516, September 25, 1950

Bank bears the loss when it cashed the check to a third person who forged thepayee's signature.

Where a check is drawn payable to the order of one person and is presented to abank by another and purports upon its face to have been duly indorsed by the payee ofthe check, it is the duty of the bank to know that the check was duly indorsed by theoriginal payee, and where the Bank pays the amount of the check to a third person,


who has forged the signature of the payee, the loss falls upon the bank who cashed thecheck, and its only remedy is against the person to whom it paid the money.

The Great Eastern Life Insurance Co. vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. andPNB, G.R. No. 18657, August 23, 1922

Forging of checks prior to delivery did not create creditor-debtor relationshipbetween depositor and depository.

Where the indorsement made on the checks were forged prior to their delivery todepositor, the payments made by the drawee-banks to the collecting bank on accountof the said checks were ineffective. Such being the case, the relationship of creditorand debtor between the depositor and the depository had not been validly effected, thechecks not having properly and legitimately converted into cash.


Collecting bank relying upon warranty made by depositor of forged checks is notliable for resulting loss.

Where the depositor indorsed the checks with forged indorsement when itdeposited them with the collecting bank, the former as an endorser guaranteed thegenuineness of all prior indorsement thereon. The collecting bank which relied uponthis warranty cannot be held liable for the resulting loss.


When indorsement of intermediate bank does not guarantee drawer's signature.

The question whether or not the indorsements have been falsified is immaterial tothe PNB's liability as a drawee, or to its right to recover from the PCIB, for, as againstthe drawee, the indorsement of an intermediate bank does not guarantee the signatureof the drawer, since the forgery of the indorsement is not the cause of the loss.

Manila Pest Control, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, G.R. No.L-27662, October 29, 1968


Sec. 24 - Presumption of Consideration

Unless otherwise stated in the instrument, a negotiable promissory note impliesprima facie valuable consideration moving to the maker whether the words "valuereceived" appear in it or not.

Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Laguna Cocoanut Oil Company, G.R. No. 23252,September 24, 1925

Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law creates a presumption that everyparty to an instrument acquired the same for a consideration or for value. Thus, thelaw itself creates a presumption in respondent David's favor that he gave valuableconsideration for the checks in question. In alleging otherwise, the petitioner has theonus to prove that respondent David got hold of the checks absent said consideration.In other words, the petitioner must present convincing evidence to overthrow thepresumption.

Cely Yang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138074, August 15, 2003

The genuineness of the deceased's signature having been shown, he is prima faciepresumed to have become a party to the check for value, following Section 24 of theNegotiable Instruments Law.

Felicito G. Sanson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127745, April 22, 2003

Under Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court the following presumptions,among others, are satisfactory if uncontradicted: a) That there was a sufficientconsideration for a contract and b) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsedfor sufficient consideration. A similar presumption is found in Section 24 of theNegotiable Instruments Law which provides that every negotiable instrument isdeemed prima facie to have been issued for valuable consideration and every personwhose signature appears thereon to have become a party for value.

Charles Lee vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117913, February 1, 2002

Mico Metals Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117914, February 1, 2002

Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, it is presumed that every party to aninstrument acquired the same for a consideration or for value.

Leodegario Bayani vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 155619, August 14, 2007


Sec. 28 - Effect of Want of Consideration

When original payee repurchases a note unenforceable for lack of consideration.

If the original payee of a note unenforceable for lack of consideration repurchasesthe instrument after transferring it to a holder in due course, the paper again becomessubject in the payee's hands to the same defense to which it would have been subject ifthe paper had never passed through the hands of a holder in due course. The same istrue where the instrument is retransferred to an agent of the payee.

Charles A. Fossum vs. Fernandez Hermanos, G.R. No. 19461, March 28, 1923

Drawee cannot allege want of consideration if he accepts the instrumentunconditionally.

The drawee, by accepting unconditionally the bill, becomes liable to the holder, andcannot allege want of consideration between him and the drawer. The holder is astranger as regards the transaction between the drawer and the drawee, and if he hasgiven value to the drawer and has no knowledge of any equity between the drawer andthe drawee, he is in the same situation as an indorsee in good faith. Hence, in anaction brought by the holder against the acceptor it is no defense that the merchandisesent by the drawer, and which constituted the consideration for the drawing of the bill,is of inferior quality than was ordered by the drawee to such a degree that it is notworth the value of the bill.

PNB vs. Bartolome Picornell, G.R. No. L-18751, September 26, 1922

Sec. 29 - Liability of Accommodation Party

Credit given to accommodation party is sufficient consideration to bind theaccommodation maker.


Such an indorsement is generally for the purpose of better securing the payment ofthe note - that is, he lends his name to the maker, not to the holder. Putting it inanother way: An accommodation note is one to which the accommodation party hasput his name, without consideration, for the purpose of accommodating some otherparty who is to use it and is expected to pay it. The credit given to the accommodationparty is sufficient consideration to bind the accommodation maker. Where, however,an indorsement is made as a favor to the indorsee, who requests it, not the better tosecure payment, but to relieve himself from a distasteful situation, and where the onlyconsideration for such indorsement passes from the indorser to the indorsee, thesituation does not present one creating an accommodation indorsement, nor one wherethere is a consideration sufficient to sustain an action on the indorsement.

Fernando Maulini vs. Antonio G. Serrano, G.R. No. 8844, December 16, 1914

Effect of signature of one or more makers on a joint and several note.

The fact that a joint and several note has been signed by one or various of themakers thereof for the accommodation by one or more of his or their comakers, doesnot render him or them an accommodation maker or makers with respect to thecreditor who, upon the receipt of the note, pays the full value thereof. In such a casethe payment by the creditor of the value of the note upon the latter passing into hishands, renders all the signers of the note liable thereon; and it is of no importance thatone or more of the signers has or have not received absolutely any part of theconsideration.

R.N. Clark vs. George C. Sellner, G.R. No. 16477, November 22, 1921

Accommodation notes are so drawn as to either express or imply a valuableconsideration prima facie.

An accommodation note showing on its face in express terms that it had beenissued for no consideration would be of little or no use to the payee, and for thatreason, if for no other, practically all accommodation notes are so drawn as to eitherexpress or imply a valuable consideration prima facie.

BPI vs. Laguna Coconut Oil Co., G.R. No. 23252, September 24, 1925

An accommodation party is liable according to the face of his undertaking.


The accommodation party can claim no benefit as such, but he is liable accordingto the face of his undertaking, the same as if he were himself financially interested inthe transaction.

PNB vs. Ramon Maza, G.R. No. 24224. November 3, 1926

Relation between accommodation party and accommodated party is that ofprincipal and surety.

After making payment to the holder, the accommodation party may sue theaccommodated party for reimbursement, since the relation between them is in effectthat of principal and surety, the accommodation party being the surety.

PNB vs. Ramon Maza, G.R. No. 24224. November 3, 1926

Accommodation party is liable to a holder for value even if he did not receivevaluable consideration thereto.

The accommodation party is liable to a holder for value as if the contract was notfor accommodation. It is not a valid defense that the accommodation party did notreceive any valuable consideration when he executed the instrument. It is not correctto say that the holder for value is not a holder in due course merely because at the timehe acquired the instrument, he knew that the indorser was only an accommodationparty.

Ang Tiong vs. Lorenzo Ting, G.R. No. L-26767, February 22, 1968

Last indorser of a forged check is deemed to be liable as accommodation party.

Although the one to whom the Bank paid the check was not proven to be the authorof the supposed forgery, as last indorser of the check, she has warranted that she hasgood title to it even if in fact she did not have it because the payee of the check wasalready dead eleven years before the check was issued. The fact that immediately afterreceiving the cash proceeds of the check in question from the drawee bank sheimmediately turned over said amount to another party, who in turn handed the amountto somebody else on the same date would not exempt her from liability because bydoing so, she acted as an accommodation party in the check for which she is alsoliable under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.



Defendant Maniego may also be deemed an "accommodation party" in the light ofthe facts, i.e., a person "who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, orindorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name tosome other person." As such, she is under the law "liable on the instrument to aholder for value, notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrumentknew . . . (her) to be only an accommodation party," although she has the right, afterpaying the holder, to obtain reimbursement from the party accommodated, "since therelation between them is in effect that of principal and surety, the accommodationparty being the surety."

People of the Phil. vs. Julia Maniego, G.R. No. L-30910, February 27, 1987

As regards an accommodation party, the fourth condition, i.e., lack of notice of anyinfirmity in the instrument or defect in title of the persons negotiating it, has noapplication. This is because Section 29 of the law preserves the right of recourse of a"holder for value" against the accommodation party notwithstanding that "such holder,at the time of taking the instrument, knew him to be only an accommodation party."

Stelco Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96160, June 17, 1992

In accommodation transactions recognized by the Negotiable Instruments Law, anaccommodating party lends his credit to the accommodated party, by issuing orindorsing a check which is held by a payee or indorsee as a holder in due course, whogave full value therefor to the accommodated party. The latter, in other words,receives or realizes full value which the accommodated party then must repay to theaccommodating party, unless of course the accommodating party intended to make adonation to the accommodated party. But the accommodating party is bound on thecheck to the holder in due course who is necessarily a third party and is not theaccommodated party. Having issued or indorsed the check, the accommodating partyhas warranted to the holder in due course that he will pay the same according to itstenor.

Travel-On, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 56169, June 26, 1992

To be considered an accommodation party, a person must (1) be a party to theinstrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, (2) not receive valuetherefor, and (3) sign for the purpose of lending his name for the credit of some otherperson. Based on the foregoing requisites, it is not a valid defense that theaccommodation party did not receive any valuable consideration when he executed


the instrument.

The provision of the Negotiable Instruments Law which holds an accommodationparty liable on the instrument to a holder for value, although such holder at the time oftaking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party, does not includenor apply to corporations which are accommodation parties. This is because the issueor indorsement of negotiable paper by a corporation without consideration and for theaccommodation of another is ultra vires. Hence, one who has taken the instrumentwith knowledge of the accommodation nature thereof cannot recover against acorporation where it is only an accommodation party. If the form of the instrument, orthe nature of the transaction, is such as to charge the indorsee with knowledge that theissue or indorsement of the instrument by the corporation is for the accommodation ofanother, he cannot recover against the corporation thereon.

Ernestina Crisologo-Jose vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80599, September 15, 1989

In the case of Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Jose M. Aruego, G.R. Nos.L-25836-37, January 31, 1981, the Court held that ". . . in lending his name to theaccommodated party, the accommodation party is in effect a surety. . . ." However,unlike in a contract of suretyship, the liability of the accommodation party remains notonly primary but also unconditional to a holder for value such that even if theaccommodated party receives an extension of the period for payment without theconsent of the accommodation party, the latter is still liable for the whole obligationand such extension does not release him because as far as a holder for value isconcerned, he is a solidary co-debtor.

Eulalio Prudencio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34539, July 14, 1986

Although the defendant-appellant to whom the plaintiff Bank paid the check wasnot proven to be the author of the supposed forgery, yet as last indorser of the check,she has warranted that she has good title to it even if in fact she did not have itbecause the payee of the check was already dead 11 years before the check wasissued. The fact that immediately after receiving the cash proceeds of the check inquestion in the amount of P1,246.08 from the plaintiff Bank, defendant-appellantimmediately turned over said amount to Adelaida Dominguez (Third-Party defendantand the Fourth-Party plaintiff) who in turn handed the amount to Justina Tinio on thesame date would not exempt her from liability because by doing so, she acted as anaccommodation party in the check for which she is also liable under Section 29 of theNegotiable Instruments Law (Act 2031).



As such accommodation makers, the individual obligation of each of them to thebank is no different from, and no greater and no less than, that contracted by OscarVarona. For, while these two did not receive value on the promissory note, theyexecuted the same with, and for the purpose of lending their names to, Oscar Varona.Their liability to the bank upon the explicit terms of the promissory note is joint andseveral.

Simeon Sadaya vs. Francisco Sevilla, G.R. No. L-17845, April 27, 1967

And as to whether or not the defendant is an accommodation party, it should betaken into account that by putting his signature to the note, he lent his name, not to thecreditor, but to those who signed with him placing himself with respect to the creditorin the same position and with the same liability as the said signers. It should be notedthat the phrase "without receiving value therefor," as used in section 29 of theaforesaid Act, means "without receiving value by virtue of the instrument" and not, asit apparently is supposed to mean, "without receiving payment for lending his name."If, as in the instant case, a sum of money was received by virtue of the note, it isimmaterial, so far as the creditor is concerned, whether one of the signers has, or hasnot, received anything in payment of the use of his name.

R. N. Clark vs. George C. Sellner, G.R. No. 16477, November 22, 1921

An accommodation party is "one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer,acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lendinghis name to some other person. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holderfor value, notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew thesame to be only an accommodation party."

Fernando Maulini vs. Antonio G. Serrano, G.R. No. 8844, December 16, 1914

An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer,acceptor, indorser, without receiving value therefor and for the purpose of lending hisname to some other person. Such person is liable on the instrument to a holder forvalue, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of the taking of the instrument knewhim to be only an accommodation party. In lending his name to the accommodatedparty, the accommodation party is in effect a surety for the latter. He lends his name toenable the accommodated party to obtain credit or to raise money. He receives no partof the consideration for the instrument but assumes liability to the other parties thereto


because he wants to accommodate another.

Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Jose M. Aruego, G.R. Nos. L-25836-37, January 31,1981

Section 29 of the NIL defines an accommodation party as a person "who has signedthe instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving valuetherefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person." As gleanedfrom the text, an accommodation party is one who meets all the three requisites, viz:(1) he must be a party to the instrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor, orindorser; (2) he must not receive value therefor; and (3) he must sign for the purposeof lending his name or credit to some other person.

Genevieve Lim vs. Florencio Saban, G.R. No. 163720, December 16, 2004

Ernestina Crisologo-Jose vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80599, September 15, 1989

Tomas Ang vs. Associated Bank, et al., G.R. No. 146511, September 5, 2007

Sec. 30 - What Constitutes Negotiation

Jose Velasco vs. Tan Liuan & Co., G.R. No. L-17230, March 17, 1922

It is important to bear in mind that the negotiation of a negotiable instrument mustbe distinguished from the assignment or transfer of an instrument whether that benegotiable or non-negotiable. Only an instrument qualifying as a negotiableinstrument under the relevant statute may be negotiated either by indorsement thereofcoupled with delivery, or by delivery alone where the negotiable instrument is inbearer form. A negotiable instrument may, however, instead of being negotiated, alsobe assigned or transferred. The legal consequences of negotiation as distinguishedfrom assignment of a negotiable instrument are, of course, different. A non-negotiableinstrument 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 theinstrument.

Raul Sesbreño vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89252, May 24, 1993


Sec. 32 - Indorsement Must Be of Entire Instrument

Partial indorsement is not negotiation.

Where the indorsement of a check is only for a part of the amount payable, it is notlegally negotiated within the meaning of section 32 of the Negotiable InstrumentsLaw.

Enrique P. Montinola vs. PNB, G.R. No. L-2861. February 26, 1951

Sec. 36 - When Indorsement Restrictive

Under the NIL, the only kind of indorsement which stops the further negotiation ofan instrument is a restrictive indorsement which prohibits the further negotiationthereof. In this kind of restrictive indorsement, the prohibition to transfer or negotiatemust be written in express words at the back of the instrument, so that any subsequentparty may be forewarned that it ceases to be negotiable. However, the restrictiveindorsee acquires the right to receive payment and bring any action thereon as anyindorser, but he can no longer transfer his rights as such indorsee where the form ofthe indorsement does not authorize him to do so.


Sec. 38 - Qualified Indorsement

Qualified indorsement does not relieve indorser of liability arising fromwarranties.

A qualified indorsement constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title to theinstrument. It may be made by adding to the indorser's signature the words "withoutrecourse" or any words of similar import. Such an indorsement relieves the indorser of


the general obligation to pay if the instrument is dishonored but not of the liabilityarising from warranties on the instrument.

Metropol (Bacolod) Financing & Investment Corp. vs. Sambok Motors Company, et al.,G.R. No. L-39641, February 28, 1983

Indorsing an instrument "with recourse" makes one a general indorser.

Indorsing the note "with recourse'' does not make one a qualified indorser but ageneral indorser who is secondarily liable. The effect of such indorsement is that thenote was indorsed without qualification. A person who indorses without qualificationengages that on due presentment, the note shall be accepted or paid, or both as thecase may be, and that if it be dishonored, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder.The words added by appellant do not limit his liability, but rather confirm hisobligations as a general indorser.

Metropol (Bacolod) Financing & Investment Corp. vs. Sambok Motors Company and NgSambok Sons Motors Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-39641, February 28, 1983

Sec. 41 - Indorsement Where Payable to Two or More Persons

To be sure, a collecting bank, where a check is deposited and which indorses thecheck upon presentment with the drawee bank, is an indorser. This is because inindorsing a check to the drawee bank, a collecting bank stamps the back of the checkwith the phrase "all prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed" and,for all intents and purposes, treats the check as a negotiable instrument, hence,assumes the warranty of an indorser. Without the collecting bank's warranty, thedrawee bank would not have paid the value of the subject check.

Metrobank vs. BA Finance Corp., et al., G.R. No. 179952, December 4, 2009

The collecting bank or last indorser, generally suffers the loss because it has theduty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior indorsements considering that the act ofpresenting the check for payment to the drawee is an assertion that the party makingthe presentment has done its duty to ascertain the genuineness of prior indorsements.Accordingly, one who credits the proceeds of a check to the account of the indorsingpayee is liable in conversion to the non-indorsing payee for the entire amount of the


check.

Metrobank vs. BA Finance Corp., et al., G.R. No. 179952, December 4, 2009

Sec. 49 - Transfer Without Indorsement; Effect of

Section 49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law contemplates a situation whereby thepayee or indorsee delivers a negotiable instrument for value without indorsing it… Itbears stressing that the above transaction is an equitable assignment and the transfereeacquires the instrument subject to defenses and equities available among prior parties.Thus, if the transferor had legal title, the transferee acquires such title and, in addition,the right to have the indorsement of the transferor and also the right, as holder of thelegal title, to maintain legal action against the maker or acceptor or other party liableto the transferor. The underlying premise of this provision, however, is that a validtransfer of ownership of the negotiable instrument in question has taken place.

Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 136202, January25, 2007

Sec. 51 - Right of Holder to Sue; Payment

The Negotiable Instruments Law does not provide that a holder who is not a holderin due course, may not in any case, recover on the instrument The only disadvantageof a holder who is not a holder in due course is that the negotiable instrument issubject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable.

Chan Wan vs. Tan Kim, G.R. No. L-15380, September 30, 1960

There can be no question that the petitioner, as the payee named in, and as theholder of each of the five bills of exchange sued upon, is entitled under section 51 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Law to sue upon said instruments in its own name.

Westminster Bank, Ltd. vs. Luis P. Torres, G.R. No. 38139, October 27, 1932


Sec. 52 - What Constitutes a Holder in Due Course

When a holder not in due course may recover from a person primarily liable.

A person who is not himself a holder in due course of a negotiable instrument mayyet recover against the person primarily liable thereon, even though the considerationfor the instrument has failed, where it appears that such holder derives his titlethrough a holder in due course. But in order that the holder may recover on theinstrument under such circumstances, it is incumbent upon him to show that he personthrough whom he derives his indefeasible title was a holder in due course; and thismust be proved as an independent matter of fact.


When presumption of being a holder in due course arises.

The presumption expressed in section 59 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, to theeffect that every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course, arises onlyin favor of a person who is a holder in the sense defined in section 191 of the sameLaw, that is, a payee or indorses who is in possession of the draft, or the bearerthereof. There is no presumption that a person through whose hands an instrument haspassed was a holder in due course.


When holder not deemed a holder in due course.

There is no doubt that as the plaintiff had purchased the two promissory notes inquestion without the necessary endorsement on the part of the holder after paymentthereof had already been one year overdue, and without having made inquiries aboutthe solvency of their makers, he cannot be considered a holder in due course.

Isidro S. Santos vs. Arturo P. Reyes, G.R. No. 42081, June 26, 1937

Disadvantage of one who is not a holder in due course.


The Negotiable Instruments law does not provide that a holder who is not a holderin due course, may not in any case, recover on the instrument. The only disadvantageof a holder who is not a holder in due course is that the negotiable instrument issubject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable.

Chan Wan vs. Tan Kim and Chen So, G.R. No. L-15380, September 30, 1960

Presumption that one is a holder in due course does not exist where his title isdefective or suspicious.

Where a holder's title is defective or suspicious, it cannot be stated that the payeeacquired the check without the knowledge of said defect in holder's title, and for thisreason the presumption that it is a holder in due course or that it acquired theinstrument in good faith does not exist.

Vicente R. de Ocampo & Co. vs. Anita Gatchalian, G.R. No. L-15126, November 30,1961

Bank encashing a check is not deemed holder in due course if payee requesteddeferment of presentment.

The fact that the payee of a check payable on demand requested the encashing bankto defer the presentment for collection of the same to the drawee bank to a later date,is an indication of an infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the personnegotiating it, so that the encashing bank cannot be considered a holder in due course.


Neither can appellant be considered as a holder in due course because section 52 ofsaid law defines a holder in due course as a holder who has taken the instrument undercertain conditions, one of which is that he became the holder before it was overdue.When appellant received the check, it was long overdue.

Enrique P. Montinola vs. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. L-2861, February 26, 1951

In the instant case, the checks were crossed checks and specifically indorsed fordeposit to payee's account only. From the beginning, Atrium was aware of the factthat the checks were all for deposit only to payee's account, meaning E.T. Henry.Clearly, then, Atrium could not be considered a holder in due course.

Atrium Management Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109491, February 28, 2001


Lourdes M. De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121794, February 28, 2001

Sec. 55 - When Title Defective

Pursuant to this provision, it is vital to show that the negotiation is made by theperpetrator in breach of faith amounting to fraud. The person negotiating the checksmust have gone beyond the authority given by his principal. If the principal couldprove that there was no negligence in the performance of his duties, he may set up thepersonal defense to escape liability and recover from other parties who, through theirown negligence, allowed the commission of the crime.

Ford Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121479, January 29, 2001

Ford Philippines, Inc. vs. Citibank, G.R. No. 128604, January 29, 2001

Sec. 57 - Rights of Holder in Due Course

As it does not appear from the record that the promissory notes in question are stillat the disposal of Alfred Berwin & Co., so that they may return them to the makerAnselmo Diaz upon the latter's making the payment thereof, said Diaz cannot becompelled to pay the sum of the said promissory notes to any person save the holderof such documents in due course, for said person is the one entitled to receive it.

Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Alfred Berwin & Company, G.R. No. 29075, October2, 1928

Sec. 58 - When Subject to Original Defenses

The Negotiable Instruments Law does not provide that a holder who is not a holderin due course, may not in any case, recover on the instrument. The only disadvantage


of a holder who is not a holder in due course is that the negotiable instrument issubject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable.

Chan Wan vs. Tan Kim, G.R. No. L-15380, September 30, 1960

Sec. 59 - Who is Deemed Holder in Due Course

The rule that a possessor of the instrument is prima facie a holder in due coursedoes not apply because there was a defect in the title of the holder because theinstrument is not payable to him or to bearer. On the other hand, the stipulation offacts indicated by the appellants in their brief, like the fact that the drawer had noaccount with the payee; that the holder did not show or tell the payee why he had thecheck in his possession and why he was using it for the payment of his own personalaccount — show that holder's title was defective or suspicious, to say the least. Asholder's title was defective or suspicious, it cannot be stated that the payee acquiredthe check without knowledge of said defect in holder's title, and for this reason thepresumption that it is a holder in due course or that it acquired the instrument in goodfaith does not exist.

Vicente R. De Ocampo & Co. vs. Anita Gatchalian, G.R. No. L-15126, November 30,1961

The law presumes that a holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder thereof in duecourse.

Sps. Pedro and Florencia Violago vs. BA Finance Corp., et al., G.R. No. 158262, July21, 2008

Sec. 60 - Liability of Maker

Payee's interest is merely to see that the note be paid according to its terms.

The maker of a promissory note cannot escape liability by alleging that he spent themoney for the medical treatment of his daughter, the beneficiary of the trustee who is


the payee of the note, since it is not the payee's concern to know how said proceedsshould be spent, inasmuch as that is the sole concern of the maker, and payee's interestis merely to see that the note be paid according to its terms.

J. Antonio Araneta vs. Antonio Perez, G.R. Nos. L-20787-8, June 29, 1965

As makers of the negotiable instruments, they must keep their engagement andmust pay as promised. Their liability on the instruments is primary and unconditional.

PNB vs. Ramon Maza, G.R. No. 24224, November 3, 1926

The liability of the defendant, as one of the signers of the note, is not dependent onwhether he has, or has not, received any part of the amount of the debt. The defendantis really and expressly one of the joint and several debtors on the note, and as such heis liable under the provisions of section 60 of Act No. 2031.


Sec. 61 - Liability of Drawer

Drawer of a bill becomes liable for the payment of its value if it is not paid.

The fact that the drawer was a commission agent of the drawee in the purchase ofthe merchandise covered by the bill does not necessarily make him an agent of thedrawee in his obligations emanating from the bill drawn by him. His acts innegotiating the bill constitute a contract distinct from that made by his havingpurchased the merchandise on behalf of the drawee, unless at the time of signing thebill he should have added to his signature some expression to indicate it. (Sec. 20,Negotiable Instruments Law.) Nor is his liability as drawer affected by the fact thatthe merchandise shipped by him, which constituted the consideration for the drawingof the bill, was or was not of inferior quality.


Without due presentment, drawer does not become liable.

The drawer in drawing the check engaged that on due presentment, the check


would be paid, and that if it be dishonored, he will pay the amount thereof to theholder. Wherefore, in the absence of due presentment, the drawer did not becomeliable.


Sec. 62 - Liability of Acceptor

Drawee becomes primarily liable upon unconditional acceptance of drafts.

As such negotiable instruments, when the drafts were unconditionally accepted bydefendant as drawee, the latter became primarily liable thereon for their respectivevalues.

PNB, et al. vs. Union Books Incorporated, G.R. No. L-8490, August 30, 1957

Westminster Bank, Ltd. vs. Luis P. Torres, G.R. No. 38139, October 27, 1932

Acceptance is unnecessary for bills of exchange payable on demand.

In view of the fact that acceptance is a step unnecessary in so far as bills ofexchange payable on demand are concerned (sec. 143), it follows that the provisionsrelative to "acceptance" are without application to checks. Acceptance implies, ineffect, subsequent negotiation of the instrument, which is not true in case of thepayment of a check because from the moment a check is paid it is withdrawn fromcirculation. The warranty established by section 62, is in favor of holders of theinstrument after its acceptance. When the drawee bank cashes or pays a check, thecycle of negotiation is terminated, and it is illogical thereafter to speak of subsequentholders who can invoke the warranty provided in section 62 against the drawee.


Drawee who unconditionally accepts the bill cannot allege want of considerationbetween him and the drawer.

The drawee, by accepting unconditionally the bill, becomes liable to the holder, and


cannot allege want of consideration between him and the drawer. The holder is astranger as regards the transaction between the drawer and the drawee, and if he hasgiven value to the drawer and has no knowledge of any equity between the drawer andthe drawee, he is in the same situation as an indorsee in good faith. Hence, in anaction brought by the holder against the acceptor it is no defense that the merchandisesent by the drawer, and which constituted the consideration for the drawing of the bill,is of inferior quality than was ordered by the drawee to such a degree that it is notworth the value of the bill.


When bank is estopped to deny the genuineness of drawer's signature.

Where a check is accepted or certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the bank isestopped to deny the genuineness of the drawer's signature and his capacity to issuethe instrument.


Act No. 2031, or the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), explicitly provides thatthe acceptor, by accepting the instrument, engages that he will pay it according to thetenor of his acceptance. This provision applies with equal force in case the draweepays a bill without having previously accepted it. His actual payment of the amount inthe check implies not only his assent to the order of the drawer and a recognition ofhis corresponding obligation to pay the aforementioned sum, but also, his clearcompliance with that obligation. Actual payment by the drawee is greater than hisacceptance, which is merely a promise in writing to pay. The payment of a checkincludes its acceptance.

Far East Bank & Trust Co. vs. Gold Palace Jewellery Co., G.R. No. 168274, August 20,2008

Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-26001, October 29, 1968

Having relied on the drawee bank's clearance and payment of the draft and notbeing negligent (it delivered the purchased jewelry only when the draft was clearedand paid), respondent is amply protected by the said Section 62. Commercial policyfavors the protection of any one who, in due course, changes his position on the faithof the drawee bank's clearance and payment of a check or draft.


Thus, considering that, in this case, Gold Palace is protected by Section 62 of the


NIL, its collecting agent, Far East, should not have debited the money paid by thedrawee bank from respondent company's account. When Gold Palace deposited thecheck with Far East, the latter, under the terms of the deposit and the provisions of theNIL, became an agent of the former for the collection of the amount in the draft. Thesubsequent payment by the drawee bank and the collection of the amount by thecollecting bank closed the transaction insofar as the drawee and the holder of thecheck or his agent are concerned, converted the check into a mere voucher, and, asalready discussed, foreclosed the recovery by the drawee of the amount paid. Thisclosure of the transaction is a matter of course; otherwise, uncertainty in commercialtransactions, delay and annoyance will arise if a bank at some future time will call onthe payee for the return of the money paid to him on the check.


Jai-Alai Corporation vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. L-29432, August 6,1975

A depositary/collecting bank may resist or defend against a claim for breach ofwarranty if the drawer, the payee, or either the drawee bank or depositary bank wasnegligent and such negligence substantially contributed to the loss from alteration.

Areza v. Express Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 176697, September 10, 2014

Sec. 63 - When Person Deemed Indorser

Nothing in the check in question indicates that the appellant is not a generalindorser within the purview of section 63 of the Negotiable Instruments Law whichmakes "a person placing his signature upon an instrument otherwise than as maker,drawer or acceptor" a general indorser, — "unless he clearly indicates by appropriatewords his intention to be bound in some other capacity," which he did not do. 05plpecda

Ang Tiong vs. Lorenzo Ting, G.R. No. L-26767, February 22, 1968

Section 63 of Act No. 2031 or the Negotiable Instruments Law provides that theacceptor, by accepting the instrument, engages that he will pay it according to thetenor of his acceptance. The acceptor is a drawee who accepts the bill. In PhilippineNational Bank v. Court of Appeals, the payment of the amount of a check implies notonly acceptance but also compliance with the drawee's obligation.

Areza v. Express Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 176697, September 10, 2014, citing


PNB v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-26001, October 29, 1968

Sec. 65 - Warranty Where Negotiation by Delivery and So Forth

Indorser warrants to the drawee that the signatures of payee and previousindorsers are genuine.

It is not supposed to be the duty of a drawee bank to ascertain whether thesignatures of the payee or indorsers are genuine or not. This is because the indorser issupposed to warrant to the drawee that the signatures of the payee and previousindorsers are genuine, warranty not extending only to holders in due course. 05plpecda


Sec. 66 - Liability of General Indorser

Law defines liability of a person who makes an unqualified indorsement of apromissory note.

When a person makes an unqualified indorsement of a promissory note, theNegotiable Instruments Law specifies and defines his liability, and parol testimony isnot admissible to explain or defeat such liability.

Jose Velasco vs. Tan Liuan & Co., G.R. No. L-17230, March 17, 1922

The liability of an indorser of a bill of exchange, after due protest and notice ofnonpayment and dishonor, is the same as that of the original obligors on such acontract, and any material alteration in the terms of this contract by the holder of thesame, without the consent of the obligor, will relieve such obligor from all liabilitythereon.

Notwithstanding that the defendant is relieved from liability by reason of thismaterial alteration in his indorsement, we hold that his original indorsement created


no liability whatever. The original indorsement by the defendant was for the purposeonly of assuring the plaintiff that the signature of V. S. Wolff, as attached to theoriginal bill of exchange, was genuine — that is to say, that the person whom herepresented himself to be. It was an indorsement of identification of the person only,and not for the purpose of incurring any liability as to the payment of such bill ofexchange. There was no attempt to show that the drawer of said bill of exchange, V.S. Wolff, was not the person who actually drew and signed said bill of exchange.

American Bank vs. Macondray & Co., G.R. No. 1808, August 23, 1905

Under Section 67 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, "Where a person places hisindorsement on an instrument negotiable by delivery he incurs all the liability of anindorser," and under Section 66 of the same statute a general indorser warrants thatthe instrument "is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be." Considering thatthe petitioner indorsed the said checks when it deposited them with the respondent,the petitioner as an indorser guaranteed the genuineness of all prior indorsementsthereon. The respondent which relied upon the petitioner's warranty should not beheld liable for the resulting loss.

Jai-Alai Corporation of the Philippines vs. Bank of the Philippine Island, G.R. No.L-29432, August 6, 1975

The supposed assurances of refund in case of dishonor of the check are preciselythe ordinary obligations of an indorser, and these obligations are, under the law,considered discharged by an unreasonable delay in the presentation of the check forpayment.

PNB vs. Benito Seeto, G.R. No. L-4388, August 13, 1952

The Negotiable Instruments Law contains provisions establishing the liability of ageneral indorser and giving the procedure for notice of dishonor. The general indorserof a negotiable instrument engages that if it be dishonored and the necessaryproceedings of dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder. Inthis connection, it has been held by a long line of authorities that notice of dishonor isnecessary in order to charge an indorser and that the right of action against him doesnot accrue until the notice is given.

Asia Banking Corp. vs. Juan Javier, G.R. No. 19051, April 4, 1923

Paulino Gullas vs. Phil. National Bank, G.R. No. 43191, November 13, 1935

It is thus clear that ordinarily private respondent may be held liable as an indorser


of the check or even as an accommodation party. However, to hold privaterespondent liable for the amount of the check he deposited by the strict application ofthe law and without considering the attending circumstances in the case would resultin an injustice and in the erosion of the public trust in the banking system.

Bank of the Phil. Islands vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112392, February 29, 2000

An indorser of an order instrument warrants "that the instrument is genuine and inall respects what it purports to be; that he has a good title to it; that all prior partieshad capacity to contract; and that the instrument is at the time of his indorsement validand subsisting." He cannot interpose the defense that signatures prior to him areforged.

Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107382, January 31, 1996

Philippine National Bank, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107612,January 31, 1996

It is undisputed that the four (4) checks issued by de Guzman were signed bypetitioner at the back without any indication as to how she should be bound therebyand, therefore, she is deemed to be an indorser thereof.

Remedios Nota Sapiera vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128927, September 14, 1999

A depositary/collecting bank where a check is deposited, and which endorses thecheck upon presentment with the drawee bank, is an endorser. Under Section 66 of theNegotiable Instruments Law, an endorser warrants "that the instrument is genuine andin all respects what it purports to be; that he has good title to it; that all prior partieshad capacity to contract; and that the instrument is at the time of his endorsementvalid and subsisting." It has been repeatedly held that in check transactions, thedepositary/collecting bank or last endorser generally suffers the loss because it has theduty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior endorsements considering that the act ofpresenting the check for payment to the drawee is an assertion that the party makingthe presentment has done its duty to ascertain the genuineness of the endorsements. Ifany of the warranties made by the depositary/collecting bank turns out to be false,then the drawee bank may recover from it up to the amount of the check. The lawimposes a duty of diligence on the collecting bank to scrutinize checks deposited withit for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. The collecting bankbeing primarily engaged in banking holds itself out to the public as the expert and thelaw holds it to a high standard of conduct.



Sec. 70 - Effect of Want of Demand on Principal Debtor

There is no question that upon accepting it, defendant became a party primarilyliable; and the holder (Philippine National Bank) may sue him, even if there had beenno presentation for payment on the day of maturity.

PNB vs. Jose C. Zulueta, G.R. No. L-7271, August 30, 1957

Sec. 71 - Presentment Where Instrument is Not Payable on Demand andWhere Payable on Demand

Under the negotiable instruments law, an instrument not payable on demand mustbe presented for payment on the day it falls due. When the instrument is payable ondemand, presentment must be made within a reasonable time after its issue. In thecase of a bill of exchange, presentment is sufficient if made within a reasonable timeafter the last negotiation thereof.

International Corporate Bank vs. Francis S. Gueco, G.R. No. 141968, February 12,2001

Sec. 74 - Instrument Must Be Exhibited

As it does not appear from the record that the promissory notes in question are stillat the disposal of Alfred Berwin & Co., so that they may return them to the makerupon the latter's making the payment thereof, said maker cannot be compelled to paythe sum of the said promissory notes to any person save the holder of such documentsin due course, for said person is the one entitled to receive it.


Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Alfred Berwin & Company, G.R. No. 29075, October2, 1928

Sec. 84 - Liability of Person Secondarily Liable, When Instrument Dishonored

Person secondarily liable becomes principal debtor after instrument is dishonoredby non-payment.

After an instrument is dishonored by non-payment, the person secondarily liablethereon ceases to be such and becomes a principal debtor. His liability becomes thesame as that of the original obligor. Consequently, the holder need not even proceedagainst the maker before suing the indorser.

Metropol (Bacolod) Financing & Investment Corp. vs. Sambok Motors Company and NgSambok Sons Motors Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-39641, February 28, 1983

Failure to notify indorser frees him from all liability upon the document.

If, after a negotiable instrument is dishonored for non-acceptance of non-payment,the endorser is not notified of the fact in the time and manner prescribed by the law,said endorser is released from all liability upon the document.

Asia Banking Corp. vs. Juan Javier, G.R. No. 19051, April 4, 1923.

Time of payment may be extended by oral agreement.

The time of payment of a bill or note may be extended by an oral agreement. Anagreement to extend the time of payment in order to be valid must be for a definitetime.

Philippine Engineering Co. vs. B.A. Green, G.R. No. 24486, December 16, 1925

Dishonor of check upon presentment differs in consequences from its being stalefor non-presentment.

The dishonoring of a check upon presentment, and its being stale for not being


presented at all time, are incompatible developments that naturally have variant legalconsequences. Thus, if indeed the check in question had been dishonored then therecan be no doubt that petitioner's redemption was null and void. On the other hand, if ithad only become stale, then it becomes imperative that the circumstances that causedits non-presentment be determined, for if this was not due to the fault of the petitioner,then it would be unfair to deprive him of the rights he had acquired as redemptioner,particularly, if, after all, the value of the check has otherwise been received or realizedby the party concerned.

Raymundo A. Crystal vs. CA, G.R. No. L-35767, June 18, 1976

The silence of Section 186 as to the indorser is due to the fact that his discharge isalready expressly covered by the provision of Section 84, the indorser being a personsecondarily liable on the instrument. The reason for the difference between theliability of the indorser and that of the drawer in case of dishonor is that the drawer isnot probably or necessarily prejudiced thereby, while an indorser is, actually or bylegal presumption.

Philippine National Bank vs. Benito Seeto, G.R. No. L-4388, August 13, 1952

Sec. 89 - To Whom Notice of Dishonor Must Be Given

Right of action against indorser does not accrue until notice.

Notice of dishonor is necessary in order to charge an indorser, and the right ofaction against him does not accrue until the notice is given.

Paulino Gullas vs. PNB, G.R. No. 43191, November 13, 1935

Section 89 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031) provides that, whena negotiable instrument is dishonored for non-acceptance or non-payment, noticethereof must be given to the drawer and of each of the endorsers, and those who arenot notified that the document was dishonored. Then, under the general principle ofthe law of procedure, it will be incumbent upon the plaintiff, who seeks to enforce thedefendant's liability upon these checks as endorser, to establish said liability byproving that notice was given to the defendant within the time, and in the manner,required by the law that the checks in question had been dishonored. If these facts are


not proven, the plaintiff has not sufficiently established the defendant's liability.

Asia Banking Corp. vs. Juan Javier, G.R. No. 19051, April 4, 1923

Sec. 114 - When Notice Need Not Be Given to Drawer

(d) Where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee oracceptor will honor the instrument.

Jose Velasco Vs. Tan Liuan & Co., G.R. No. L-17230, March 17, 1922

Secs. 119 (d) and 122

As the promissory notes were not discharged or impaired through any act oromission of the bank, Sections 119 (d) and 122 of the NIL as well as Art. 1249 of theCivil Code would necessarily find no application.

Tomas Ang vs. Associated Bank, et al., G.R. No. 146511, September 5, 2007

Sec. 124 - Alteration of Instrument; Effect of

In case the negotiable instrument is altered before acceptance, is the drawee liablefor the original or the altered tenor of acceptance? There are two divergentintepretations proffered by legal analysts. The first view is supported by the leadingcase of National City Bank of Chicago v. Bank of the Republic. In said case, a certainAndrew Manning stole a draft and substituted his name for that of the original payee.He offered it as payment to a jeweler in exchange for certain jewelry. The jewelerdeposited the draft to the defendant bank which collected the equivalent amount fromthe drawee. Upon learning of the alteration, the drawee sought to recover from thedefendant bank the amount of the draft, as money paid by mistake. The court denied


recovery on the ground that the drawee by accepting admitted the existence of thepayee and his capacity to endorse.

The second view is that the acceptor/drawee despite the tenor of his acceptance isliable only to the extent of the bill prior to alteration. This view appears to be inconsonance with Section 124 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which states that amaterial alteration avoids an instrument except as against an assenting party andsubsequent indorsers, but a holder in due course may enforce payment according to itsoriginal tenor. Thus, when the drawee bank pays a materially altered check, it violatesthe terms of the check, as well as its duty to charge its client's account only for bonafide disbursements he had made. If the drawee did not pay according to the originaltenor of the instrument, as directed by the drawer, then it has no right to claimreimbursement from the drawer, much less, the right to deduct the erroneous paymentit made from the drawer's account which it was expected to treat with utmost fidelity.The drawee, however, still has recourse to recover its loss. It may pass the liabilityback to the collecting bank which is what the drawee bank exactly did in this case. Itdebited the account of Equitable-PCI Bank for the altered amount of the checks.

Areza v. Express Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 176697, September 10, 2014, citingNational City Bank of Chicago v. Bank of the Republic, 300 Ill. 103, 132 N.E. 832, 22A.L.R. 1153

Bank assumes risk if it encashes check without first clearing it with drawee bank.

Where a bank to which a check was negotiated encashes the same without firstclearing it with the drawee bank, contrary to normal banking practice, and the check isdishonored by the drawee bank on the ground that the drawer had ordered payment tobe stopped because the check was fraudulently altered, the encashing bank assumesthe risk and no right of payment could be acquired by the latter against any partythereto.


The liability of an indorser of a bill of exchange, after due protest and notice ofnonpayment and dishonor, is the same as that of the original obligors on such acontract, and any material alteration in the terms of this contract by the holder of thesame, without the consent of the obligor, will relieve such obligor from all liabilitythereon.

American Bank vs. Macondray & Co., G.R. No. 1808, August 23, 1905


Sec. 125 - What Constitutes Material Alteration

Conversion of bank from drawee to drawer constitutes material alteration whichdischarges the instrument.

The insertion of the words "Agent, Phil. National Bank," which converts the bankfrom a mere drawee to a drawer and therefore changes its liability, constitutes amaterial alteration of the instrument without the consent of the parties liable thereon,and so discharges the instrument.

Enrique P. Montinola vs. PNB, G.R. No. L-2861. February 26, 1951

[T]he 24-hour clearing rule does not apply to altered checks.


Sec. 126 - Bill of Exchange

The weight of authority in the United Status is that postal money orders are notnegotiable instruments (Bolognesi vs. U. S., 189 Fed. 395; U. S. vs. Stock DrawersNational Bank, 30 Fed. 912), the reason behind this rule being that, in establishing andoperating a postal money order system, the government is not engaging in commercialtransactions but merely exercises a governmental power for the public benefit.

It is to be noted in this connection that some of the restrictions imposed uponmoney orders by postal laws and regulations are inconsistent with the character ofnegotiable instruments. For instance, such laws and regulations usually provide for notmore than one endorsement; payment of money orders may be withheld under avariety of circumstances (49 C. J. 1153).

Philippine Education Co., Inc. vs. Mauricio A. Soriano, et al., G.R. No. L-22405, June30, 1971

As long as a commercial paper conforms with the definition of a bill of exchange,that paper is considered a bill of exchange. The nature of acceptance is important only


in determination of whether a commercial paper is a bill of exchange or not.

The Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Jose M. Aruego, G.R. Nos. L-25836-37, January31, 1981

Sec. 129 - Inland and Foreign Bills of Exchange

The draft is a foreign bill of exchange, because, drawn in New York, it is payablehere. Although the amount payable is expressed in dollars - not current money here - itis still negotiable, for it may be discharged with pesos of equivalent amount.

PNB vs. Jose C. Zulueta, G.R. No. L-7271, August 30, 1957

Sec. 132 - Acceptance; How Made, and So Forth

Actual payment of amount of check implies compliance by drawee with hisobligation.

The acceptance of a bill is the signification by the drawee of his assent to the orderof the drawer, which in the case of checks, is the payment on demand, of a given sumof money. Upon the other hand, actual payment of the amount of a check implies notonly an assent to said order of the drawer and a recognition of the drawee's obligationto pay the aforementioned sum, but, also, a compliance with such obligation.

PNB vs. CA and PCI Bank, G.R. No. L-26001, October 29, 1968

Sec. 143 - Presentment for Acceptance

In general, "acceptance", in the sense in which this term is used in the NegotiableInstruments Law , is not required for checks, for the same are payable on demand.


Indeed, "acceptance" and "payment" are, within the purview of said Law, essentiallydifferent things, for the former is "a promise to perform an act," whereas the latter isthe "actual performance" thereof. In the words of the law, "the acceptance of a billis the signification by the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer," which, inthe case of checks, is the payment, on demand, of a given sum of money. Upon theother hand, actual payment of the amount of a check implies not only an assent to saidorder of the drawer and a recognition of the drawee's obligation to pay theaforementioned sum, but, also, a compliance with such obligation.

Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-26001, October 29, 1968

Sec. 152 - In What Cases Protest Necessary

Marlou L. Velasquez vs. Solidbank Corp., G.R. No. 157309, March 28, 2008

Sec. 184 - Promissory Note

A promissory note is a solemn acknowledgment of a debt and a formalcommitment to repay it on the date and under the conditions agreed upon by theborrower and the lender. A person who signs such an instrument is bound to honor itas a legitimate obligation duly assumed by him through the signature he affixesthereto as a token of his good faith. If he reneges on his promise without cause, heforfeits the sympathy and assistance of this Court and deserves instead its sharprepudiation.

Pentacapital Investment Corp. vs. Makilito B. Mahinay, G.R. Nos. 171736 & 181482,July 5, 2010, citing Sierra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90270, July 24, 1992

Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names on the faceof promissory notes are makers, promising that they will pay to the order of the payeeor any holder according to its tenor.

Astro Electronics Corp. vs. Phil. Export And Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp., G.R. No.136729, September 23, 2003


Promissory notes executed to evidence crop loans become due and demandableonly at end of agricultural year.

Promissory notes executed to evidence crop loans to be used for plowing,purchasing seeds, planting, cultivation, harvesting, marketing transportation etc. forthe agricultural year 1943 1944 became due and demandable only at the end of thesaid agricultural year - more or less around the month of April, 1944.

In the Matter of the Testate Estate of the deceased German Gaston, Victoria Vda. deGaston vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-20320, March 30, 1967

Sec. 185 - Check

Among the different types of checks issued by a drawer is the crossed check. TheNegotiable Instruments Law is silent with respect to crossed checks, although theCode of Commerce makes reference to such instruments. We have taken judicialcognizance of the practice that a check with two parallel lines in the upper left handcorner means that it could only be deposited and could not be converted into cash.Thus, the effect of crossing a check relates to the mode of payment, meaning that thedrawer had intended the check for deposit only by the rightful person, i.e., the payeenamed therein. The change in the mode of paying the obligation was not a change inany of the objects or principal condition of the contract for novation to take place.

Anamer Salazar vs. J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 171998, October 20, 2010

Crossed check is generally deposited with bank mentioned in the crossing.

Where a check is crossed specially in favor of a certain bank, the check is generallydeposited with the bank mentioned in the crossing, so that the latter may take chargeof the collection. If it is not presented by said bank for payment, the drawee is liable tothe true owner, in case of payment to persons not entitled thereto.


Where duty to prove acquisition of check in good faith devolves upon payee.


Where the payee acquired the check under circumstances which should have put itto inquiry, why the holder had the check and used it, to pay his own personal account,the duty devolved upon it to prove that it actually acquired said check in good faith.

Vicente R. de Ocampo & Co. vs. Anita Gatchalian, G.R. No. L-15126, November 30,1961

Purchaser of check or draft is obliged to satisfy himself that the paper is genuine.

One who purchases a check or draft is bound to satisfy himself that the paper isgenuine, and that by indorsing it or presenting it for payment or putting it intocirculation before presentation he impliedly asserts that he performed his duty.


Checks and money orders may be bought and sold like commodities.

Checks, as bills of exchange, are negotiable instruments and may be bought andsold like a commodity. Money orders, also considered as bills of exchange of limitednegotiability, possess the same attributes as other negotiable instruments. Thus, theymay also be bought and sold like checks.

Manuel Bastida vs. Acting Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-24011, October 24,1970

However, postal money orders are not negotiable instruments.

The weight of authority in the United States is that postal money orders are notnegotiable instruments, the reason behind this rule being that, in establishing andoperating a postal money order system, the government is not engaging in commercialtransactions but merely exercises a governmental power for the public benefit. It is tobe noted in this connection that some of the restrictions imposed upon money ordersby postal laws and regulations are inconsistent with the character of negotiableinstruments.

Philippine Education Co., Inc. vs. Mauricio A. Soriano, G.R. No. L-22405, June 30,1971

Memorandum check signifies that maker/drawer engages to pay bona fide holderunconditionally.


A memorandum check is in the form of an ordinary check, with the word"memorandum", "memo" or "mem" written across its face, signifying that the makeror drawer engages to pay the bona fide holder absolutely, without any conditionconcerning its presentment. Such a check is an evidence of debt against the drawer,and although may not be intended to be presented, has the same effect as an ordinarycheck, and if passed to a third person, will be valid in his hands like any other check.

People of the Phil. vs. Hon. David G. Nitafan, G.R. No. 75954, October 22, 1992

Negotiability of a check is not affected by its being crossed.

According to commentators, the negotiability of a check is not affected by its beingcrossed, whether specially or generally. It may legally be negotiated from one personto another as long as the one who encashes the check with the drawee bank is anotherbank, or if it is especially crossed, by the bank mentioned between the parallel lines.This is specially true in England where the Negotiable Instrument Law originated.


Effects of crossing a check.

Crossing of a check should have the following effects: (a) the check may not beencashed but only deposited in the bank; (b) the check may be negotiated only once —to one who has an account with a bank; (c) and the act of crossing the check serves aswarning to the holder that the check has been issued for a definite purpose so that hemust inquire if he has received the check pursuant to that purpose, otherwise, he is nota holder in due course.


Holder of crossed check deemed not in good faith if it fails to ascertain indorser'stitle or nature of possession.

It is then settled that crossing of checks should put the holder on inquiry and uponhim devolves the duty to ascertain the indorser's title to the check or the nature of hispossession. Failing in this respect, the holder is declared guilty of gross negligenceamounting to legal absence of good faith, contrary to Sec. 52(c) of the NegotiableInstruments Law, and as such the consensus of authority is to the effect that the holder


of the check is not a holder in due course.


A crossed check with the notation "account payee only" can only be deposited inthe named payee's account. It is gross negligence for a bank to ignore this rule solelyon the basis of a third party's oral representations of having a good title thereto.

Equitable Banking Corp. vs. Special Steel Products, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 175350, June13, 2012

The checks that Interco issued in favor of SSPI were all crossed, made payable toSSPI's order, and contained the notation "account payee only." This creates areasonable expectation that the payee alone would receive the proceeds of the checksand that diversion of the checks would be averted. This expectation arises from theaccepted banking practice that crossed checks are intended for deposit in the namedpayee's account only and no other. At the very least, the nature of crossed checksshould place a bank on notice that it should exercise more caution or expend morethan a cursory inquiry, to ascertain whether the payee on the check has authorized theholder to deposit the same in a different account. It is well to remember that "[t]hebanking system has become an indispensable institution in the modern world andplays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized society. Whether as merepassive entities for the safe-keeping and saving of money or as active instruments ofbusiness and commerce, banks have attained an [sic] ubiquitous presence among thepeople, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and, above all,trust and confidence. In this connection, it is important that banks should guardagainst injury attributable to negligence or bad faith on its part. As repeatedlyemphasized, since the banking business is impressed with public interest, the trust andconfidence of the public in it is of paramount importance. Consequently, the highestdegree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance arerequired of it.

Equitable Banking Corp. vs. Special Steel Products, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 175350, June13, 2012 citing Security Bank and Trust Company vs. Rizal Commercial BankingCorporation, G.R. Nos. 170984 & 170987, January 30, 2009

The fact that a person, other than the named payee of the crossed check, waspresenting it for deposit should have put the bank on guard. It should have verified ifthe payee (SSPI) authorized the holder (Uy) to present the same in its behalf, orindorsed it to him. Considering however, that the named payee does not have anaccount with Equitable (hence, the latter has no specimen signature of SSPI by which


to judge the genuineness of its indorsement to Uy), the bank knowingly assumed therisk of relying solely on Uy's word that he had a good title to the three checks. Suchmisplaced reliance on empty words is tantamount to gross negligence, which is the"absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the entire absence ofcare, evincing a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort toavoid them."

Equitable Banking Corp. vs. Special Steel Products, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 175350, June13, 2012 citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. BA Finance Corporation, G.R.No. 179952, December 4, 2009

A check is a bill of exchange payable on demand and only the rules governing billsof exchange payable on demand are applicable to it, according to section 185 of theNegotiable Instruments Law.

Philippine National Bank vs. The National City Bank of New York, G.R. No. 43596,October 31, 1936

The checks in question which plaintiff drew on its foreign correspondents wereorders for the payment of money and clearly come within the definitions of a bill ofexchange under section 126 and a check as defined in section 185, and, as such, areforeign bills of exchange within the meaning of subsection (i) of section 1449 of theAdministrative Code of 1917.

Bank of the Phil. Islands vs. Wenceslao Trinidad, G.R. No. 22967, February 27, 1925

It is a well-known and accepted practice in the business sector that a Cashier'sCheck is deemed as cash. Moreover, since the said check had been certified by thedrawee bank, by the certification, the funds represented by the check are transferredfrom the credit of the maker to that of the payee or holder, and for all intents andpurposes, the latter becomes the depositor of the drawee bank, with rights and dutiesof one in such situation. Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn,the certification is equivalent to acceptance. Said certification "implies that the checkis drawn upon sufficient funds in the hands of the drawee, that they have been setapart for its satisfaction, and that they shall be so applied whenever the check ispresented for payment. It is an understanding that the check is good then, and shallcontinue to be good, and this agreement is as binding on the bank as its notes incirculation, a certificate of deposit payable to the order of the depositor, or any otherobligation it can assume.

New Pacific Timber & Supply Co. vs. Alberto V. Seneris, G.R. No. L-41764, December19, 1980


Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, thedelivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment (citing Sec. 189,Act 2031 on Negs. Insts.; Art. 1249, Civil Code; Bryan London Co. vs. AmericanBank, 7 Phil. 255; Tan Sunco vs. Santos, 9 Phil. 44; 21 R.C.L. 60, 61). A check,whether a manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of acheck in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receiptby the obligee or creditor.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.72110, November 16, 1990

A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand. Thus, a checkis a written order addressed to a bank or persons carrying on the business of banking,by a party having money in their hands, requesting them to pay on presentment, to aperson named therein or to bearer or order, a named sum of money.

Sps. George and Librada Moran vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105836, March 7, 1994

The law is that a check produces the effect of payment only when it has beencashed.

Raymundo A. Crystal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-35767, June 18, 1976

Sec. 186 - Within What Time a Check Must Be Presented

Indorser is wholly discharged irrespective of question of loss or inquiry.

Although the drawer of a check is discharged from liability only to the extent of theloss caused by unreasonable delay in presenting the check for payment, an indorser iswholly discharged thereby irrespective of any question of loss or inquiry.


Delay of 27 days from indorsement to presentation of check deemed unreasonable.

A delay of 27 days from the date of indorsement to that of the presentation of thecheck for payment at the drawee bank, is unreasonable, and consequently, discharges


completely the indorser from liability.


It is also true that Section 84 is applicable, but its application is subject to thecondition imposed by Section 186, to the effect that the check must be presented forpayment within a reasonable time after its issue.

Philippine National Bank vs. Benito Seeto, G.R. No. L-4388, August 13, 1952

A check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue,and in determining what is a "reasonable time," regard is to be had to the nature of theinstrument, the usage of trade or business with respect to such instruments, and thefacts of the particular case. The test is whether the payee employed such diligence asa prudent man exercises in his own affairs. This is because the nature and theorybehind the use of a check points to its immediate use and payability.


A check is not legal tender and that a creditor may validly refuse payment by check,whether it be a manager's, cashier's or personal check.

Norberto Tibajia, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100290, June 4, 1993

Sec. 191 - Definition and Meaning of Terms


Manuel Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107898, December 19, 1995

Acceptance

Moreover, according to section 191, "acceptance" means "an acceptance completedby delivery or notification" and this concept is entirely incompatible with payment,because when payment is made the check is retained by the bank, and there is no suchthing as delivery or notification to the party receiving the payment. (1 Bouvier's LawDictionary, 476.) There can be no such thing as "acceptance" in the ordinary sense ofthe term. A check being payable immediately and on demand, the bank can fulfill its


duty to the depositor only by paying the amount demanded. The holder has no right todemand from the bank anything but payment of the check, and the bank has no right,as against the drawer, to do anything but pay it. (5 R.C.L., p. 516, par. 38.) A check isnot an instrument which in the ordinary course of business calls for acceptance. Theholder can never claim acceptance as his legal right. He can present for payment, andonly for payment. (1 Morse on Banks and Banking, 6th ed., People. 898, 899.)

Philippine National Bank vs. The National City Bank of New York, G.R. No. 43596,October 31, 1936

Issue

Section 191 of the Negotiable Instruments Law defines "issue" as the first deliveryof an instrument, complete in form, to a person who takes it as a holder. Significantly,delivery is the final act essential to the negotiability of an instrument. Deliverydenotes physical transfer of the instrument by the maker or drawer coupled with anintention to convey title to the payee and recognize him as a holder. It means morethan handing over to another; it imports such transfer of the instrument to another asto enable the latter to hold it for himself.

John Dy vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 158312, November 14, 2008

Sec. 193 - Reasonable Time

A check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue, andin determining what is a "reasonable time," regard is to be had to the nature of theinstrument, the usage of trade or business with respect to such instruments, and thefacts of the particular case. The test is whether the payee employed such diligence as aprudent man exercises in his own affairs. This is because the nature and theory behindthe use of a check points to its immediate use and payability.


Negotiable Instruments - Annotated

Documents

Transcript of Negotiable Instruments - Annotated