|
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE Petitioner, -versus- GREGORIO C. ROXAS, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 157833 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our
resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) dated February 13, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV
No. 67980.
The
facts of the case, as found by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are:
Gregorio
C. Roxas, respondent, is a trader. Sometime
in March 1993, he delivered stocks of vegetable oil to spouses Rodrigo and
Marissa Cawili. As payment therefor, spouses Cawili issued a personal check in
the amount of P348,805.50. However, when respondent tried to encash the
check, it was dishonored by the drawee bank. Spouses
Cawili then assured him that they would replace the bounced check with a
cashier’s check from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), petitioner.
On P348,805.50, drawn against the account of
Marissa Cawili, payable to respondent. Rodrigo
then handed the check to respondent in the presence of Elma.
The
following day,
Despite
respondent’s insistence, the bank officers refused to encash the check and
tried to retrieve it from respondent. He
then called his lawyer who advised him to deposit the check in his
(respondent’s) account at Citytrust,
On
In its
answer, petitioner specifically denied the allegations
in the complaint, claiming that it issued the check by mistake in good faith;
that its dishonor was due to lack of consideration; and that respondent’s remedy
was to sue Rodrigo Cawili who purchased the check. As a counterclaim, petitioner
prayed that respondent be ordered to pay attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation.
Petitioner
filed a third-party complaint against spouses Cawili. They were later declared in default for their failure
to file their answer.
After
trial, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, this Court hereby renders judgment in favor of herein plaintiff and orders the defendant, Bank of the Philippine Islands, to pay Gerardo C. Roxas:
1)
The sum of P348,805.50, the face value of the
cashier’s check, with legal interest thereon computed from
2)
The sum of P50,000.00 for moral damages;
3)
The sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages to
serve as an example for the public good;
4)
The sum of P25,000.00 for and as attorney’s
fees; and the
5) Costs of suit.
As to the third-party complaint, third-party defendants Spouses Rodrigo and Marissa Cawili are hereby ordered to indemnify defendant Bank of the Philippine Islands such amount(s) adjudged and actually paid by it to herein plaintiff Gregorio C. Roxas, including the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision, affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Hence,
this petition.
Petitioner
ascribes to the Court of Appeals the following errors: (1) in finding that
respondent is a holder in due course; and (2) in holding that it (petitioner) is liable to respondent for the amount
of the cashier’s check.
Section
52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides:
SEC. 52. What
constitutes a holder in due course. – A holder in due course is a holder
who has taken the instrument under the following conditions:
(a)
That it is complete and regular upon its face;
(b)
That he became the holder of it before it was overdue
and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the
fact;
(c)
That he took it in good faith and for value;
(d)
That at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no
notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of person
negotiating it.
As a general rule, under the above provision, every holder
is presumed prima facie to be a holder in due course. One who claims otherwise has the onus
probandi to prove that one or more of the conditions required to constitute
a holder in due course are lacking. In
this case, petitioner contends that the
element of “value” is not present, therefore, respondent could not be a holder in
due course.
Petitioner’s contention lacks merit. Section 25 of the same law states:
SEC. 25. Value, what constitutes. – Value is any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. An antecedent or pre-existing debt constitutes value; and is deemed as such whether the instrument is payable on demand or at a future time.
In Walker Rubber Corp. v. Nederlandsch Indische & Handelsbank, N.V. and South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.,[2]
this Court ruled that value “in general terms may be some right, interest,
profit or benefit to the party who makes the contract or some forbearance,
detriment, loan, responsibility, etc. on the other side.” Here, there is no dispute that respondent
received Rodrigo Cawili’s cashier’s check as payment for the former’s vegetable oil.
The fact that it was Rodrigo who
purchased the cashier’s check from petitioner
will not affect respondent’s status as a holder for value since the check was delivered
to him as payment for the vegetable oil he sold to spouses Cawili. Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err in
concluding that respondent is a holder in due course of the cashier’s check.
Furthermore, it bears emphasis that the disputed check is a
cashier’s check. In International
Corporate Bank v. Spouses Gueco,[3] this
Court held that a cashier’s check is really the bank’s own check and may be
treated as a promissory note with the bank as the maker. The check becomes the primary obligation
of the bank which issues it and constitutes a written promise to pay upon
demand. In New
Pacific Timber & Supply Co. Inc. v. Señeris,[4] this
Court took judicial notice of the “well-known and accepted practice in the
business sector that a cashier’s check is deemed as cash.” This is because the mere issuance of a
cashier’s check is considered acceptance thereof.
In view
of the above pronouncements, petitioner bank became
liable to respondent from the moment it issued the cashier’s check. Having been accepted by respondent, subject
to no condition whatsoever, petitioner should
have paid the same upon presentment by the former.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision
of the Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) in CA-G.R. CV No. 67980 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
Chief Justice