Está en la página 1de 9

DEFENSES Santos.

Santos and Benares


contends that they should
1. MINORITY (PERSONAL) not be liable because the one
who signed the check as an
X makes a promissory note accommodation party is
for P500 payable to the Movers Enterprises.
order of A, to help him buy
school books. A indorses the Issue: Can a corporation be
note of B who, in turn held liable as an
indorses the note to C. C accommodation party?
knows As minority. If C sues
the note to X on the note, Held: NO. The issue or
can X set up the defense of indorsment of negotiable
minority and lack of paper by a corporation
consideration? (1989 Bar). without consideration and for
the accommodation of
A: NO. X cannot set up the another is ultra vires. Hence,
defense of minority of A. one who has taken the
Although minority is a real instrument with knowledge of
defense, such defense is the accommodation thereof
personal to the minor and cannot recover against a
cannot be invoked by other corporation where it is only
parties. This is specially true an accommodation party.
in the case of X, the maker, Officers have no power to
who warrants that the payee execute for mere
has the capacity to contract. accommodation a negotiable
X is therefore barred from instrument of the corporation
claiming that the payee is a for their individual debts or
minor because of his transactions arising from or
warranties. in relation to matter in which
corporation has no legitimate
2. ULTRA VIRES ACT concern.
(REAL) However as an exception,
officers can issue a
Case of Crisologo-Jose v CA. negotiable paper in the name
Facts: Atty. Benares of corporation for the
(President) and Santos (VP) accommodation of a third
of Mover Enterprises drawn a person only if specially
check under the account of authorized to do so.
Mover in accommodation of
its clients payable to 3. NON-DELIVERY AND
Crisologo-Jose. However, the CONDITIONAL
check was dishonored due to DELIVERY
insufficiency of funds.
Crisologo filed a case of BP
22 against Benares and
A. NON-DELIVERY OF Nazareno immediately filled
INCOMPLETE INSTRUMENT the amount of P50,000 and
(REAL) fictitious name as a payees
name and passed it to
1. Jose makes a note payable Roldan. Thereafter, Roldan
to bearer with the amount endorsed the check to Dante.
blank and delivers it to Karen
for safekeeping. Marina fills a. Can Dantes enforce the
up the note for P20,000 and check against Jose Reyes?
negotiates it to Adriano. Can Answer: NO. Dantes
Jose dishonor the note and cannot enforce the
refuse payment to Adriano on instrument against Jose
the ground that the note was Reyes. Reyes can raise the
incomplete and was originally defense that the
delivered to Karen for incomplete instrument
safekeeping? (1997 Bar) was not delivered since
the check was only stolen
Answer: YES, Jose can and filled up by Nazareno.
dishonor the not. Jose can b. What if Dantes is a HIDC?
invoke the non-delivery of an A: NO. If an incomplete
incomplete instrument. instrument has not been
Although Jose delivered the delivered, it will not, if
instrument to Karen for completed and negotiated
safekeeping, it is not clear without authority be a
how Marina obtained the valid contract against any
instrument. When an holder even a holder in
incomplete instrument has due course.
not been delivered, it will not,
if completed and negotiated 3. A signed a blank check
without authority, be a valid which he had
contract in the hands of any inadvertently left on his
holder as against any person desk at his Escolta
whose signature was placed Office. The sane was
thereon before delivery (Sec. later stoln by B, who
15). It does not matter if filled the amount of
Adriano is a holder in due P22,300 and a fictitious
course because the defense name as a payee. B
involved a real defense. then endorsed the
check to C, then C to D,
2. Jose Reyes has signed a then D to E, and E to F.
blank check, and in his haste
to attend a party, left the a. Can F enforce the
check in his desk. Later, instrument against A?
Nazareno forced open the A: NO, F cannot enforce
door to Reyes office, and the instrument against
stole the blank check. A. The instrument was
an incomplete dishonor are duly taken
instrument and was not and F obtained his title
delivered. It was through indorsement of
likewise not delivered C. An indorser is liable
with the authority of A. for breach of
Hence, it is not a valid warranties.
contract in the hands of
any holder. 4. FILLING UP BLANKS
b. Suppose F is a HDIC, BEYOND AUTHORITY
will your answer in A (PERSONAL)
will be the same? 1. Larry issued a
A: Yes. Non- Delivery of negotiable promissory
an incomplete note to Evelyn and
instrument is a real authorized the latter to fill
defense that can be up the amount in blank
raised against a holder with his loan account in
in due course. the sum of P1,000.
c. Can F enforce the However, Evelyn inserted
instrument against B? P5,000 in violation of the
A: YES. F can enforce instruction. She
the instrument against negotiated the note to
B. His wrongdoing Julie who had knowledge
prevented the recovery of the infirmity. Julie in
from the maker, a turn negotiated said note
wrongdoer should to Devi for value and who
always be made liable had no knowledge of the
for any damage infirmity.
proximately caused
thereby. Moreover, Can Devi enforce
when the thief the note against Larry and
endorsed the if she can, for how much?
instrument in an Explain.
assumed fictitious
name, he warranted A: YES. Devi can enforce
that the instrument in the instrument against
all respects what it Larry. The defense of Larry
purports it to be and is mere personal under
that he has good title Section 14 of NIL. The law
to it. Therefore, he is provides that if an
liable for breach of instrument is wanting any
warranty. material particular is
d. Against C? completed beyond
A: Yes if C enforsed the authority that was given,
instrument provided it is valid and effectual for
that the proper all purposes in the hands
proceedings for of a holder in due course
and he may enforce it as if material particular, the
it had been filled up person in possession
strictly in compliance with thereof has prima facie
the authority given. Thus authority to complete it by
Devi can enforce the filling up the blanks
instrument against Larry therein. Any instrument
for P5,000. that is completed is valid
and effectual for all
2. A, single proprietor of a purposes in the hands of a
business concern, is about holder in due course.
to leave for a business trip
and, as he often does on In fact, even if the
these occasions, signs instrument cannot be
several checks in blank. considered as actually
He instructs B, his delivered when it was
secretary to safekeep the delivered to the secretary,
checks and fill them out the doctrine of
when and as required to comparative negligence
pay accounts during his prevents A from raising
absence. B fills out one of the same as defense. As
the checks by placing her between A and C, both
name as payee, fills the innocent parties, it was
amount and endorses and the negligence of A in
delivers the check to C entrusting the check to B
who accepts it in good which is the proximate
faith as payment for the cause of the loss.
goods sold to B. B regrets
her action and tells A what 5. FRAUD
she did. A directs the Bank
in time to dishonor the 1. A induces B by fraud to
check. When C encashes make a promissory note
the check, it is dishonored. payable on demand to the
Can A be held liable to C. order of A in the sum of
P5,000.
A: YES. A can be held a. Can A file an action
liable by C., provided that successfully against B
the appropriate for the amount of the
proceeding for dishonor be note?
duly taken. The A: NO. B may raise the
instrument in this case defense of fraud in
was an incomplete inducement against A
instrument but delivered who is not a holder in
as it was entrusted to B, due course. This is
the secretary of A. Under specially true where A
Section 14 of NIL, when an was the one who
instrument wanting any
fraudulently induced B Honesto withdrew the
to issue the note. amount of P15th from
b. Going further, A Shure Bank and
transfers the note to C disappeared. After
who pays P5,000 receiving his bank
therefor and acquires statement, Mario
the note under the discovered the alteration
circumstances that and demanded restitution
make C a holder in due from Progressive Bank.
course. Can C file an Discuss fully the rights
action successfully and the liabilities of the
against B, the maker parties concerned.
of the note, for the
amount thereof? A: Progressive Bank, the
A: Yes. C is presumed drawee of the check,
to be a holder in due should comply with the
course. Hence, in the demand of Mario for the
absence of proof that restitution of the amount
he is not, he is a of P150,000 to his
holder in due course account. Progressive
who is free from Bank has no right to
personal defense deduct such amount from
including fraud in Marios account. The
inducement. order of Mario is to pay
P50,000 and material
6. MATERIAL ALTERATION alteration avoids the
instrument. Progressive
1. Mario Guzman issued to Bank is also responsible
Honesto Santos a check for negligence of its
for P50th as payment for employees in not noticing
a 2nd hand car. Without the alteration.
the knowledge of Mario,
Honesto changed the As between
amount to P150th which Progressive and Shure,
alteration could not be the latter is not liable
detected by the naked provided no negligence
eye. Honesto deposited can be ascribed to
the altered check with Progressive. As a
Shure Bank which collecting bank, Shure
forwarded the same to warrants the genuineness
Progressive Bank for of the check and that the
payment. Progressive check is in all respect
Bank without noticing the what it purports it to be.
alteration paid the check,
debiting P150th from the
account of Mario.
2. In consideration of those who made,
some goods he bought, A authorized and assented
issued to B a the alteration and
personal check in the subsequent indorsers. B,
amount of P280.00 which the holder of the check is
B altered to not a holder in due
P2,800.00 without the course and he was even
knowledge of A. The the one who caused the
alteration is not alteration, hence, the
apparent to the naked instrument is avoided as
eye. B then deposited the to B.
altered check BPI can in turn,
in his account with PNB, collect whatever amount
which released it for that it returned to A from
clearing. The BPI, the collecting bank, PNB.
the drawee bank, did not The alteration is covered
notice the alteration and by the warranties of a
the check collecting bank. If the
therefore cleared. B was clearing was done
able to withdraw the through PCHC, the
P2,800.00, after drawee can file a claim
which, he closed his against the collecting
account. When A received bank within the period
his bank prescribed by law.
statement and cancelled Whatever amount
checks, he noticed the that may be paid by the
discrepancy in collecting bank can be
the amount when he recovered from B.
compared the altered
check with his check 7. ABSENCE OR FAILURE
stub. He immediately OF CONSIDERATION
notified BPI and 1. NM issued 2 PDC to CV
demanded a recredit. BPI, as security for prices of
in turn, demanded jewelry to be sold. Each
recredit from PNB which check has the face
cannot now locate B. value of P50,000.
Discuss the rights Thereafter, CV
and liabilities of the negotiated the check to
parties under the SIH without the
circumstances. knowledge of NM. NM
returned the jewelries
A: BPI should recredit the to CV and tried to
account of A. Under retrieve the checks.
Section 124 of the NIL, a Having failed to do so,
material alteration avoids NM withdrew her funds
the instrument, except to from the bank and the
checks were the check, the drawee
subsequently bank dishonored it.
dishonored when If Fund House files a
presented for payment. complaint against
SIH sued NM who Pentium and CD Bytes
interposed the defense for the payment of the
that the checks do not dishonored check, will
have any the complaint prosper?
consideration.
However, NM did not A: The complaint will
present proof that SIH prosper only against CD
is not a HIDC. Will the Bytes but not PC. Fund
defense of absence of House is not a HIDC
consideration prosper because it took the
against SIH? crossed checks that
A: NO. NM cannot were meant for
invoke the defense of Pentium. A person who
absence of took crossed checks is
consideration against deemed to been
SIH. There is no warned of the purpose
showing that SIH is not of the checks and he is
a HIDC, hence, the not bound to inquire
presumption on due from the original parties
course holding stands. regarding the
As a holder in due circumstances with
course, SIH is free from respect to its issuance.
personal defenses of Had it inquired from the
prior parties. parties, it would have
discovered that there
2. On March 1, 1996, PC was non-delivery of the
company ordered a computer. Consequenlt
computer from CD such non-delivery or
Bytes and issued a failure of consideration
crossed check in the can be raised as a
amount of P30,000 defense by PC against
posy dated March 31, Fund.
1996. Upon receipt of The complaint will
the check, CD Bytes prosper against CD
discounted the check Bytes because Fund
with Fund House. House can enforce its
On April 1, 1996, PC contract. An immediate
stopped payment of party is liable to his
the check for failure of contracting party
CD to deliver the
computer, thus, when 8. FORGERY IN NOTES
Fund House deposited a. Makers Signature
1. M, maker, prepared a because his
promissory note payable wrongdoing prevented
to the order of A, but he recovery from M. He is
did not signed the same in effect the maker of
and left it inside his the instrument.
drawer. X, a thief stole
the instrument, forged b. Will your answer
Ms signature and will be the same if
delivered the same to A, the instrument is a
A then indorsed the bearer instrument?
instrument to B, B then A: Yes the answer
indorsed it to C, then C to would still be the
D, the present holder. same if the
a. Against whom can instrument is a
D enforce payment? bearer instrument .
A: D can enforce The forged
payment from X, A, B signature of M is
and C but not against still inoperative as
M. Under Section 23 of to him.
the NIL, the forged The indorsers
signature of M is are still secondary
wholly inoperative and liable because the
no right to enforce NIL provides that
payment was acquired person who indorse
against M by virtue of a bearer
the forged signature. instruments are
liable to subsequent
However, indorsers A, parties who
B and C are made acquired title
liable because they are through their
parties after the indorsement. In this
forgery and are case, D acquired
therefore precluded title through the
from setting up forgery indorsement of A, B
against the present and C.
holder, D. When A, B
and C indorsed the b. Indorsers Signature
instrument, they 1. Jose loaned Mario some
warranted that the money and, to evidence his
instrument is genuine indebtedness, Mario
and in all respects executed and delivered to
what it purports to be. Jose a promissory note
payable to his order. Jose
On the other hand, the endorsed the note to Pablo.
forger will be deemed Bert fraudulently obtained
the principal debtor the note from Pablo and
endorsed it to Julian by right against Mario and Jose
forging Pablos signature. who were parties prior to
Julian endorsed the note to forgery.
Camilo. b. May Camilo go against
a. May Camilo enforce the Pablo?
said promissory noteagainst A: Camilio has no recourse
Mario and Jose? against Pablo because he did
A:Camilo may not enforce not transfer his right over
said promissory note against the instrument. He did not
Mario and Jose. The indorse or deliver the
promissory note at the time instrument.
of forgery being payable to c. May Camilo enforce said
order, the signature of Pablo note against Julian?
was essential for the A:
instrument to pass title to d. Against whom can Julian
subsequent parties. The have the right ofrecourse?
signature of the indorser,
Jose, was forged, hence such
signature was wholly
inoperative and no right to
enforce payment is acquired
by virtue of the forged
indorsement. (Sec 23 NIL).
Camilio did not acquire any

También podría gustarte