7/17/2019 51 - 59 cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/51-59-cases 1/6

De Ocampo vs. Gatchalian (3 SCRA 596)

Facts: Anita Gatchalian was interested in buying a car when she was ofered by Manuel Gonzales to a

car owned by the Ocampo Clinic. Gonzales claim that he was duly authorized to look or a buyer,

negotiate and accomplish the sale by the Ocampo Clinic. Anita accepted the ofer and insisted to

delier the car with the certi!cate o registration the ne"t day but Gonzales adised that the owners

would only comply only upon showing o interest on the part o the buyer. Gonzales recommended

issuing a check #$%&& ' payable(to(bearer 'cross(checked) as eidence o the buyer*s good aith.

Gonzales added that it will only be or saekeeping and will be returned to her the ollowing day.

 +he ne"t day, Gonzales neer appeared. +he ailure o Gonzales to appeal resulted in Gatchalian to

issue a +O$ $A-M/+ O010 on the check. 2t was later ound out that Gonzales used the check as

payment to the 3icente de Ocampo #Ocampo Clinic) or the hospitalization ees o his wie #the ees

were only $445.67, so he got a reund o $578.97). 1e Ocampo now demands payment or the check,

which Gatchalian reused, arguing that de Ocampo is not a holder in due course and that there is no

negotiation o the check.

 +he Court o :irst 2nstance ordered Gatchalian to pay the amount o the check to 1e Ocampo. ;ence

this case.

Isse: <hether or not 1e Ocampo is a holder in due course.

!el": /O. 1e Ocampo is not a holder in due course. 1e Ocampo was negligent in his ac=uisition o the

check. +here were many instances that arouse suspicion> the drawer in the check #Gatchalian) has no

liability with de Ocampo ? it was cross(checked#only or deposit) but was used a payment by Gonzales?

it was not the e"act amount o the medical ees. +he circumstances should hae led him to in=uire on

the alidity o the check. ;oweer, he ailed to e"ercise reasonable prudence and caution.

2n showing a person had knowledge o acts that his

action in taking the instrument amounted to bad aith need not proe that he knows the e"act raud. 2t

is su@cient to show that the person had /O+2C that there was something wrong. +he bad aith here

means bad aith in the commercial sense obtaining an instrument with no =uestions asked or no

urther in=uiry upon suspicion.

 +he presumption o good aith did not apply to de Ocampo because the deect was apparent on the

7/17/2019 51 - 59 cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/51-59-cases 2/6

instruments ace it was not payable to Gonzales or bearer. ;ence, the holder*s title is deectie or

suspicious. Being the case, de Ocampo had the burden o proing he was a holder in due course, but

ailed.

#e$otia%le Inst&ments Case Di$est: 'icente R. De Ocampo '. Gatchalian (96)

essons Applicable> 0ights o the holder #/egotiable 2nstruments aw)

:AC+>

ept 8 5D7E eening> Anita C. Gatchalian was looking or a car or the use o her husband and

the amily and Manuel Gonzales who was accompanied by mil :aFardois #personally known to

Anita) ofered her a car. Manuel Gonzales represented to deendant Anita that he was duly

authorized by Ocampo Clinic, the owner o the car, to look or a buyer and negotiate orand accomplishthe sale, but which acts were not known to Ocampo. eptember D

5D7E Anita re=uested Manuel to bring the car the day ollowing together with the certi!cate o

registration o the car so that her husband would be able to see same. Manuel Gonzales told her

that unless there is a showing that the party interested in the purchase is ready he cannot bring

the certi!cate o registration. Anita gae him a check which will be shown to the owner as

eidence o buyers G: in the intention to purchase, it being or saekeeping only o Manuel and to

be returned. :or the hospitalization o the wie o Manuel, he paid the check to Ocampo clinic

$445.67 ( payment o said ees and e"penses

$578.97 (gien to Manual as balance

/e"t 1ay> Manual did not appear so Anita issued a stop payment order

Anita !led with the O@ce o the City :iscal o Manila, a complaint or estaa against Manuel

Appeal Manuel contends that>

the check is not a negotiable instrument, under the acts and circumstances stated in

the stipulation o acts ( no deliery #ection 5%, /egotiable 2nstruments aw) because only or

saekeeping #conditional deliery)

Ocampo is not a holder in due course, no negotiation prior to ac=uiring the check

check is not a personal check o Manuel

could hae in=uired why a person would use the check o another to

pay his own debt, Gatchalian being personally ac=uainted with 3. 0. de Ocampo

2H>

5. <'/ Ocampo is a holder in due course ( /O

9. <'/ prima acie holder in due course applies ( /O

;1>

5. /O

7/17/2019 51 - 59 cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/51-59-cases 3/6

ec. 5D5

holder ( payee or indorsee o a bill or note, who is in possession o it, or the bearer

ec. 79

holder in due course ( holder who has taken the instrument under the f conditions>

5. +hat it is complete and regular on its ace9. +hat he became the holder o it beore it was oerdue, and without notice that it had

been preiously dishonored, it such was the act.

E. +hat he took it in good aith and or alue.

4. +hat at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice o any in!rmity in

the instrument or deect in the title o the person negotiating it

the amount o the check did not correspond e"actly with the obligation o Matilde

Gonzales to 1r. 3. 0. de Ocampo

check had two parallel lines in the upper let hand corner, which practice means

that the check could only be deposited but may not be conerted into cash

2t was payees duty to ascertain rom the holder Manuel what the nature o his title to the

check was or the nature o his possession. ( ailure> guilty o gross neglect and legal absence o G:

2n order to show that the deendant had knowledge o such acts that his action in taking the

instrument amounted to B: it is not necessary to proe that the deendant knew the e"act raud

2t is su@cient that the buyer o a note had notice or knowledge that the note was in

some way tainted with raud

9. /O

ec. 7D

eery holder is deemed prima acie to be a holder in due course a possessor o the instrument is prima acie a holder in due course does not apply because

there was a deect in the title o the holder #Manuel Gonzales) because the instrument is not

payable to him or to bearer.

suspicious circumstance

'icente De Ocampo vs Anita Gatchalian

3 SCRA 596 – Mercantile Law – Negotiable Instruments Law – Rights of the ol!er – "hat Constitutes a

ol!er in #ue Course – Is a $a%ee a hol!er in !ue course&

Matilde Gonzales was a patient o the 1e Ocampo Clinic owned by 3icente 1e Ocampo. he incurred a

debt amounting to $445.67. ;er husband, Manuel Gonzales designed a scheme in order to pay of this

debt> 2n 5D7E, Manuel went to a certain Anita Gatchalian. Manuel purported himsel to be selling the

car o 3icente 1e Ocampo. Gatchalian was interested in buying said car but Manuel told her that 1e

Ocampo will only sell the car i Gatchalian shows her willingness to pay or it. Manuel adised

7/17/2019 51 - 59 cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/51-59-cases 4/6

Gatchalian to draw a check o $%&&.&& payable to 1e Ocampo so that Manuel may show it to 1e

Ocampo and that Manuel in the meantime will hold it or saekeeping. Gatchalian agreed and gae

Manuel the check. Ater that, Manuel neer showed himsel to Gatchalian.

Meanwhile, Manuel gae the check to his wie who in turn gae the check to 1e Ocampo as payment

o her bills with the clinic. 1e Ocampo receied the check and een gae Matilde her change #sukli).

On the other hand, since Gatchalian neer saw Manuel again, she placed a stop(payment on the

$%&&.&& check so 1e Ocampo was not able to cash on the check. entually, the issue reached the

courts and the trial court ordered Gatchalian to pay 1e Ocampo the amount o the check.

Gatchalian argued that 1e Ocampo is not entitled to payment because there was no alid

indorsement. 1e Ocampo argued tha he is a holder in due course because he is the named payee.

ISS*: <hether or not 1e Ocampo is a holder in due course.

!*+D: /o. ection 79 o the /egotiable 2nstruments aw, de!nes holder in due course, thus>

 A hol!er in !ue course is a hol!er who has ta'en the instrument un!er the following con!itions(

)a* +hat it is com$lete an! regular u$on its face,

)b* +hat he became the hol!er of it before it was o-er!ue. an! without notice that it ha! been

 $re-iousl% !ishonore!. if such was the fact,

)c* +hat he too' it in goo! faith an! for -alue,

)!* +hat at the time it was negotiate! to him he ha! no notice of an% in/rmit% in the instrument or

!efect in the title of the $erson negotiating it0

 +he upreme Court emphasized that i one is such a holder in due course, it is immaterial that he was

the payee and an immediate party to the instrument. +he upreme Court howeer ruled that 1e

Ocampo is not a holder in due course or his lack o good aith. 1e Ocampo should hae in=uired as to

the legal title o Manuel to the said check. +he act that Gatchalian has no obligation to 1e Ocampo

and yet he*s named as the payee in the check hould hae apprised 1e Ocampo? that the check did not

correspond to Matilde Gonzales* obligation with the clinic because o the act that it was or $%&&.&& more than the indebtedness? that why was Manuel in possession o the check all these gae 1e

Ocampo the duty to ascertain rom the holder Manuel Gonzales what the nature o the latter*s title to

the check was or the nature o his possession.

7/17/2019 51 - 59 cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/51-59-cases 5/6

,*SI#A '. IAC -5 SCRA -9

FAC/S:

 Iose Go purchased rom Associate Bank a Cashier*s Check, which he let on top o the manager*s

desk when let the bank. +he bank manager then had it kept or saekeeping by one o its

employees. +he employee was then in conerence with one Ale"ander im. ;e let the check in hisdesk and upon his return, im and the check were gone. <hen Go in=uired about his check,

the same couldnt be ound and Go was adised to re=uest or the stoppage o payment which he did.

;e e"ecuted also an a@dait o loss as well as reported it to the police.

 +he bank then receied the check twice or clearing. :or these two times, they dishonored the

payment by saying that payment has been stopped. Ater the second time, a lawyer contacted

it demanding payment. ;e reused to disclose the name o his client and threatened to sue. ater,

the

name o Mesina was reealed. <hen asked by the police on how he possessed the check, he

said it was paid to him im. An inormation or thet was then !led against im.

A case o interpleader was !led by the bank and Go moed to participate as interenor in the

complaint or damages Mesina moed or the dismissal o the case but was denied. +he trial

court ruled in the interpleader case ordering the bank to replace the cashier*s check in aor o Go.

!*+D:

$etitioner cannot raise as arguments that a cashier*s check cannot be countermanded rom

the hands o a holder in due course and that a cashier*s check is a check drawn by the

bank against itsel. $etitioner ailed to substantiate that he was a holder in due course.

Hpon

=uestioning, he admitted that he got the check rom im who stole the check. ;e reused to

disclose how and why it has passed to him. 2t simply means that he has notice o the deect o his title

oer the check rom the start. +he holder o a cashier*s check who is not a holder in due

course

cannot enorce payment against the issuing bank which dishonors the same. 2 a payee o a

cashier*s check obtained it rom the issuing bank by raud, or i there is some other reason why

the payee is not entitled to collect the check, the bank would o course hae the right toreuse

payment o the check when presented by payee, since the bank was aware o the acts surrounding

the loss o the check in =uestion.

,esina vs IAC

Marcelo A. Mesina s. 2ntermediate Appellate Court

G.0. /o. 6&547 /oember 5E, 5D8%, 547 C0A 4D6

((holder in due course

:AC+>

 Iose Go purchased rom Associated Bank a cashiers check or $8&&,&&&.&&. Hnortunately, he let said

check on the top o the desk o the bank manager when he let the bank. +he bank manager entrustedthe check or saekeeping to a bank o@cial, a certain Albert Hy. <hile Hy went to the mens room, the

check was stolen by his isitor in the person o Ale"ander im. Hpon discoering that the check was

lost, Iose Go accomplished a J+O$ $A-M/+J order. +wo days later, Associated Bank receied the

lost check or clearing rom $rudential Bank. Ater dishonoring the same check twice, Associated Bank

receied summons and copy o a complaint or damages o Marcelo Mesina who was in possession o

the lost check and is demanding payment. $etitioner claims that a cashiers check cannot be

countermanded in the hands o a holder in due course.

7/17/2019 51 - 59 cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/51-59-cases 6/6

2H>

<hether or not petitioner can collect on the stolen check on the ground that he is a holder in due

course.

0H2/G>/o. $etitioner ailed to substantiate his claim that he is a holder in due course and or consideration or

alue as shown by the established acts o the case. Admittedly, petitioner became the holder o the

cashiers check as endorsed by Ale"ander im who stole the check. ;e reused to say how and why it

was passed to him. ;e had thereore notice o the deect o his title oer the check rom the start. +he

holder o a cashiers check who is not a holder in due course cannot enorce such check against the

issuing bank which dishonors the same.

11A $erson who became the hol!er of a cashier2s chec' as en!orse! b% the $erson who stole it an!

who refuse! to sa% how an! wh% it was $asse! to him is not a hol!er in !ue course0