NIL WWW 07/22

23:05-41:05

Atty. A: If you intentionally did that in order to expedite the maturity date of the
instrument, then thats purely fraud but class, mind you, you can always agree with
the other parties and if the other parties agree that thats the case, then it will still be
considered valid. Then theres no fraud to speak of because it has been disclosed
and they have agreed, then that is ok. So ante-dating and post-dating does not really
render the instrument invalid and it is an acceptable practice.

But then thats ok, because there is still a date placed in the instrument. What if the
instrument does not bear a date at all? Does that tender the instrument defective?
Not necessarily. It depends on the kind of instrument you are dealing with. What are
the types of instruments that require a date to be placed?
when it is payable on a fixed period after date
when it is payable on a fixed period after sight
In these two instances, a date is necessary in order to determine the maturity date
of the instrument. If wala ang date, everyone will still be considered holder in due
course. For all you know, this instrument is intended to be payable diay 10 days ago
pa.

But if thats how the instrument was drafted and there is no date placed, what is
your remedy then?
Sec. 13 will tell us that there is an authority to insert a date.

This is how the instrument is written:

I promise to pay 1 million pesos to Y or order 5 days from date.

The instrument does not bear any date. What are you supposed to place there? The
date of issuance.

What if it was just that and you put a different date? It was B who placed the wrong
date of July 13, 2017 when supposedly the date was supposed to be yesterday (July
17, 2017)? Sa kapaspas pag.transfer sa check, D received it today. Can D go after X
and demand payment?
If you look at Sec. 13, the insertion of a wrong date does not avoid the instrument in
the hands of its subsequent holder in due course but as to him, the date so inserted
is to be regarded as the true date. The term avoid does not mean mulikay ha. It
means to render it void.
That being the case, what is your first level of analysis when it comes to insertion of
a wrong date?
You determine what is the defect. Here, I have already given you the defect
(insertion of the wrong date) After having determined the defect, you determine
next who is the holder of the instrument. Clearly, its D here. When you know that,
determine whether D is a holder in due course or a holder through a holder in due
course. In this case, how would you consider D? In the absence of any information,
he is presumed to b a holder in due course. D, being a holder in due course, can
successfully demand payment from X because X cannot raise the defense of
insertion of the wrong date. That particular defense cannot be raised against a
holder in due course. How would you classify that? It would be classified as a
personal defense. A personal defense is a type of defense which cannot be raised
against a holder in due course but it can be raised against against a holder not in due
course. We know then that insertion of the wrong date is a personal defense on the
part of the parties prior to the defect.

If that is the case, what if X does not pay the instrument? If the instrument is
dishonored, what do you do? Notice of dishonor
Sige kana unta, but granting its already done, why would you do that notice of
dishonor? In order to render parties secondarily liable. So then, you can go after the
parties secondarily liable. Who are these parties secondarily liable in this case?
Y,A,B,C
If D will go to Y, can Y raise a defense? Can he in fact go to Y in this case?
Because this is an order instrument, all parties prior to him may be a warranty
against him. But when you are a party prior to a defect, what is available to you are
defenses. In the case of Y, can Y raise a defense against D? Cannot because D is a
holder in due course. Y can still be compelled to pay, the same with A. How about C?
Can D go after C? it will no longer be defenses because C is a party after the defect
but you can go after him in relation to his warranty. What did he warrant? He
warranted under Sec. 66 because this is an order instrument.

What is that warranty? There is an insertion of the wrong date so there is an issue
with the genuineness of the instrument. So then, you can go after C for he warrants
that the instrument is genuine and in all respects, what it purports to be.

Now, will your answer change if D is not a holder in due course because he knew the
instrument was actually dated supposedly yesterday?
No, your answer is not supposed to change. Why? Because D being a holder through
a holder in due course acquires the rights of a holder in due course.

Ultimately, D can go after B because he is the perpetrator of the fraud and he must
be penalized. X, Y and A can also go after B.

Now, will your answer change if D and C are not holders in due course?
Yes, because D being merely not a holder in due course and not being qualified to
avail of the shelter principle cannot successfully demand payment from X, Y and A
because the latter can raise the personal defense of insertion of wrong date against
him. However, D can go after C because C warranted to him that the instrument is
genuine and in all respects what it purports to be but ultimately, D can go after B.