Asistencia y participación en eventos de interés para el sector

Sec. 132 FACTS:

May 1942, while the province of Samar was still occupied by the Japanese military forces, a check was issued by said province to Paulino Santos (then the postmaster of Borongan) for the sum of P25,000, drawn against the Philippine National Bank (PNB), Cebu. The payee negotiated the check with James McGuire, an American citizen and resident of Borongan. After the liberation in 1946, McGuire presented the check to the municipal treasurer of Borongan for payment, but the latter (who merely noted it) was not able or did not choose to pay the same.

McGuire wrote letter to the Bureau of Posts seeking payment, these letters were referred by the Director of the Bureau to the PNB.

On April 25, 1950, PNB requested the Bureau to furnish it with photostatic copies of the check which were duly received by the bank on May 12. As of this date, the province of Samar still had a deposit of P84, 287.47 in the PNB. On May 14, PNB request McGuire to present the check to the provincial treasurer and the provincial auditor for the certification. On Aug 22, McGuire again requested the Buresau of Posts to expedite compliance with the requirement of the PNB so as to permit the encashment of the check. Before the check could be certified, the province of Samar on Sept 4, 1951 withdrew the amount of P83, 504.07 leaving a balance of P743.43. McGuire transferred his rights to the check to the present plaintiffs (Sumacad). Sumacad filed the present collection case. Trial Court held PNB

and province of Samar solidarily liable. Only PNB appealed contending that it could not pay the check because it was never presented to it with the necessary certification and that it is the province of Samar, as the drawee, that is primarily liable.

ISSUES:

Whether PNB is primarily liable—NO! PNB is only susidiarily liable; province of Samar is primarily liable

Whether there was acceptance by PNB---YES! There was implied acceptance.

HELD:

An implied acceptance of the check by PNB was created in view of the fact that upon its own request, it was furnished with the photostatic copies of the check and it even required McGuire to present the check to the provincial treasurer and auditor for certification. PNB voluntarily assumed the obligation of holding so much of the deposit of the province of Samar as would be sufficient to cover the amount of the check, or before allowing the withdrawal that exhausted said deposit, of making the necessary inquiry on the matter. Its actions amounted to implied acceptance.

ALLIED BANK V. CA 494 SCRA 467 Sec. 152 FACTS:

Allied Bank purchased an export bill from GGS. The bill was drawn form a letter of credit covering men’s Valvoline training suits in transit to West Germany. The bill was issued by Chekiang First Bank, Hong Kong. In short, GGS discounted the bill to Allied Bank instead of directly claiming payment from Chekiang under the letter of credit. Allied Bank paid the peso equivalent of the bill amounting to P151,474.52. GGS acknowleged receipt of the amount in a letter.

Nari Gidwani and Alarcon International represented by Hans-Joachim Schoeler executed Letters of Guaranty in favor of Allied Bank in case the bill should be dishonored or retired. The Spouses De Villa and Nari Gadwani executed a Continuing Gauaranty or Comprehensive Surety, guaranteeing payment of any credit accommodation that Allied may extend to GGS. Allied negotiated the bill to Chekiang, but payment was refused because of some discrepancies in the documents. Allied demanded payment from GGS and all the respondents based on the letters of guaranty and surety agreement.

The respondents refused presenting different defenses. GGS and Gidwani admitted to the due excution of the bill but said that they signed the letters of guaranty and the surety in blank and that neither covered the subject bill. Spouses De Villa also said that the surety was not meant to secure the bill, while Alarcon said that its branch here in the Philippines had no authority to issue letter of guaranty.

It is also argued that Allied did not protest the dishonor of the bill and because of this GGS is discharged from its liability. The trial court dismissed the petition of Allied but the CA reversed and ordered GGS to pay Allied. Allied filed for a motion for reconsideration in order to hold Gidwani, Alarcon and the Spouses De Villa liable for payment of the obligation. ISSUE:

Can the respondents be held jointly and severally liable under the Letters of Guaranty and Surety in the absence of protest on the bill in accordance with Sec. 152 of the NIL?

RULING:

It is normal for a negotiating bank in a discounting arrangement, such as Allied, to ask for securities. It is clear in this case that the respondents undertook and bound themselves as guarantors and surety to pay the full amount of the bill in case of dishonor or non-payment as evidenced by the letters of guaranty and surety they executed. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the parties.

Also, it is immaterial that no protest was made by Allied in order to hold the respondents liable.

1. The surety itself contained a stipulation waiving the need for notice of dishonor and protest

2. Sec. 152 of the NIL is applicable only to indorsers and not to guarantors and sureties. The liability of a gurantor and a surety is broader than the liability of an indorser. Unless an instrument is promptly presented for payment at maturity and a due notice of dishonor is given to the indorser he is discharged from liability on the bill. However, it is not necessary that notice be given to gurarantors and sureties unless there is an express stipulation requiring it.

It cannot also be argued that the contracts were contracts of adhesion since the respondents fixed their signatures at different times on different documents. Hence it is presumed that they had knowledge of the terms and conditions of the letters of guaranty and surety. Laches is also unavailing, inequity is not present in this case.

SC: Decision is modified. Alarcon is subsidiarily liable as gurantor while Gidwani and Spouses De Villa are jointly and severally liable with GGS as sureties for the amount of P151,474.52

MORAN V. CA 230 SCRA 799 Sec. 185 FACTS:

The Morans are the owners of the Wack-Wack Petron gast station. They purchase bulk fuel and other products form Pterophil Corp. on cash on delivery basis. Orders were made by telephone and payments were effected by personal checks upon delivery.

They maintained 1 current account and 2 savings account with Citytrust. As special privilege the bank allowed the Morans to maintain a zero balance in their current account. Transfers from savings account 1 to the current account could only be made with the authority of the Morans, but prior written authorization was given to Citytrust to transfer funds from savings account 2 to the current account any time its funds are insufficient to meet the withdrawals. The authorization was in the form of a pre- authorized transfer agreement (PAT) which was an accommodation mae by the bank in favor of the Morans.

Dec. 12, 1983 and Dec. 13, 1983: Moran issued 2 checks as payment for the products they ordered from Petrophil. Check 1 – P50,576 and Check 2 – 56,090

Dec. 14, 1983: Petrophil deposited the checks with PNB Pandacan. Afterwards the checks were presented for clearing in the afternoon of the same day. The Morans had zero balance in their current account and only P26,104.30 in savings account 2 (the one with the PAT) while savings account 1 only had P43,268.39

Dec. 15, 1983 (10:00 am): Moran deposited in savings account 1: P17, 628.83 and in savings account 2: P41,030. He also transferred by debit memorandum P40,000 from savings account 1 to the current account and at the same time P60,000 was transferred from savings account 2 to the current account through the PAT

Petrophil refused to deliver the products to the Moran because of the dishonoring of the checks issued for insufficiency of funds. The non- delivery forged the Morans to temporarily stop their business. Petrophil also cancelled their credit accommodation forcing them to pay their purchases in cash.

Moran asked for an explanation from the bank, the bank replied that there was a grave error that was committed. Diaz, the bank manager, then went to Moran to get his signature for the manager’s check Moran applied for to serve as payment for the dishonored checks. Diaz then personally went to Petrophil to give the check.

Moran, 6 months after the incident, found out from Petrophil that Citytrust notifying them that the two checks of Moran were inadvertently dishonored due to operational error. This prompted Moran to write to Citytrust and ask for indemnity for the damage caused by the dishonoring of the check. Citytrust refused and Moran instituted a civil case for damages

ISSUES:

W/N Citytrust is liable to pay damages

W/N the Morans had sufficient funds to cover the checks when the bank dishonored the checks

RULING: No.

A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand. It is 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 a person named therein or to bearer or order, a named sum of money.

Fixed savings and current deposits of money in banks and other similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan. The relationship between the bank and the depositor is that of debtor and creditor. The bank is therefore bound to honor the checks of the depositor to the extent of the amount of the deposits. The failure of the bank to pay the check when the deposit is sufficient entitles the depositor to substantial damages without any proof of actual damages.

Although the checks were processed in Dec. 15, 1983, the available balance of the Morans on Dec. 14, 1983 was what was used in determining whether or not there was sufficient cash deposited to fund the two checks. Dec. 14, 1983 was the date when the checks were by presented by PNB Pandacan to the clearing house. This is the standard clearing procedure. Hence, the subsequent deposits and transfers made by the Morans on Dec. 15, 1983, were too late to prevent the dishonor of the checks.

A check as distinguished from an ordinary bill of exchange is supposed to be drawn against a previous deposit of funds for it is ordinarily intended for immediate payment. Only the drawer is at fault here since he failed to keep track of his available balance. The PAT was merely an accommodation in favor of Moran and legally the bank could still refuse the payment of the checks since the Morans clearly did not have sufficient funds in their accounts when the checks were dishonored.

The letter of Citytrust to Petrophil was merely to maintain goodwill and continued patronage of a client and could not be construed as an admission of liability

FIRESTONE TIRE V. INES CHAVES 18 SCRA 356

Sec. 185 FACTS:

Ines Chaves brought from Firestone several tires and paid using a check amounting to Php 1,437.50. When the check was presented to Security Bank, it was returned for insufficiency of funds. Despite repeated demands, Ines failed to pay thus firestone initiated an action against the former. The petitioner asked for payment of attorney’s fees which was granted by the court. It is now the contention of Ines that she is not guilty of bad faith and in consequence, attorney fees should not be granted. ISSUES:

W/N there was bad faith on the part of Ines. RULING:

Ines knew that that there were no funds to back up the check she issued. This shows bad faith on her part. It would have been a different patter if Firestone agreed to accept the check, knowing that it was not covered by adequate funds in the bank in such a case, no finding of bad faith can be made against the appellant. There was nothing in the record to show that appellee knew that there were no funds in the bank when it accepted the check from the appellant. Thus, the order of the lower court that the appellants’ action was lacking of good faith was affirmed.

PEOPLE V. REYES ET. AL.