Gatchalian GR No L 15126 Q NSW received three post dated and

Gatchalian gr no l 15126 q nsw received three post

This preview shows page 15 - 17 out of 30 pages.

Gatchalian, G.R. No. L15126, Nov. 30, 1961)Q:NSW received three postdated and crossedchecks issued on the condition that the draweron due date would make sufficient deposits tocover the checks. NSW did not wait for thematurityandindorsedthechecktoaninvestment house, which deposited the same.The checks bounced. Is the investment house aholder in due course?A:No, that the checks had been issued subject tothe condition that the drawer on due date wouldmake the back up deposit for said check whichconditionwasnotmade,constitutesagooddefense against the holder who is not a HIDC,particularly when the check was crossed. Thecrossing of a check serves a warning to the holderthat the check had been issued for a definitepurpose so that he must inquire if received thecheck pursuant to that purpose, otherwise, he isnot a holder in due course.(State InvestmentHouse v. IAC, G.R. No. 72764, July 13, 1989)Q:Whatistheeffectofpossessionofanegotiable instrument after presentment anddishonor?A:It does not make the possessor a holder forvalue within the meaning of the law. It gives riseto no liability on the part of the maker or draweror indorsers.(STELCO Marketing Corp. vs. CA, G.R.No. 96160, June 17, 1992)Q: Is a corporation to which four crossed checkswere indorsed by the payee corporation a holderin due course and hence entitled to recover theamount of the checks when the same had beendishonoredforthereasonofpaymentstopped ?A:Thecheckswerecrossedchecksandspecificallyindorsedfordeposittopayee saccountonly.Fromthebeginning,thecorporation was aware of the fact that the checkswereallfordepositonlytopayee saccount.Clearly then, it could not be considered a HIDC.However, it does not follow as a legal propositionthat simply because it was not a HIDC for havingtaken the instruments in question, w/ notice thatthesamewasfordepositonly,thatitwasaltogetherprecludedfromrecoveringontheinstrument. The disadvantage in not being a HIDCis that the negotiable instrument is subject todefenses as if it were nonnegotiable.(AtriumManagement Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 109491, Feb.28, 2001)B. DEFENSES AGAINST THE HOLDERQ: What are the defenses against the Holder?A:1.Real Defensesthose that are availableagainst all parties, both immediate andremote, including holders in due course.2.Personal Defensesdefenses which arenot available against a holder in duecourse. Those which grow out of theagreement or conduct of a particularpersoninregardtotheinstrumentwhich renders it inequitable or him,
Background image
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAWUN I V E R S I T Y O FSA N T OTO M A SFacultaddeDerechoCivilACADEMICSCHAIR:LESTERJAYALANE. FLORESIIVICECHAIRSFORACADEMICS:KARENJOYG. SABUGO& JOHNHENRYC. MENDOZAVICECHAIR FORADMINISTRATION ANDFINANCE: JEANELLEC. LEEVICECHAIRS FORLAYOUTANDDESIGN:EARLLOUIEM. MASACAYAN& THEENAC. MARTINEZthoughholdingthelegaltitle,toenforce it against the party sought to bemade liable.
Background image
Image of page 17

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture