Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7


Section 16 1. It is settled that venue in criminal cases is a vital ingredient of
MANUEL LIM V COURT OF APPEALS o Rule 110, Sec. 14. Place where action is to be instituted. (a)
In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and
Facts: tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the
Spouses Lim are the president and treasurer, respectively of Rigi Bild offense was committed or anyone of the essential ingredients
Industries Inc. (RIGI). For years, RIGI had been transacting with Linton thereof took place.
Commercial Co. Inc. (LINTON), wherein LINTO supplies RIGI with steel o If the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of
plates, steel bars and purlin sticks for the fabrication, installation and its consummation occurred in one municipality or territory, the
building of steel structures. court therein has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.
Spouses Lim ordered mild steel, mild steel plates and purlins on 2. In determining proper venue, the following acts material and essential
different dates, all of which were delivered at 7th Avenue, Kalookan City. to each crime and requisite to its consummation must be considered:
To pay for these deliveries, the Lims issued seven SOLIDBANK checks. o the seven (7) checks were issued to LINTON at its place of
When the seven checks were deposited with RCBC, the checks were business in Balut, Navotas;
dishonoured for insufficiency of funds with the additional notation o b) they were delivered to LINTON at the same place;
payment stamped. Despite demand, the spouses lim refused to make o (c) they were dishonored in Kalookan City; and,
good the checks or pay the value of the deliveries. o (d) petitioners had knowledge of the insufficiency of their funds
Manuel Lim admitted having issued the seven checks, but denied that in SOLIDBANK at the time the checks were issued. Since there is
his company had insufficient funds to cover the amounts of the checks. no dispute that the checks were dishonored in Kalookan City, it
The trial court of Malabon held the spouses guilty of estafa and violation is no longer necessary to discuss where the checks were
of B.P. Blg. 22. dishonored.
Spouses Lim assailed the decision of the trial court, arguing that that 3. Under Sec. 191 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:
the RTC of Malabon had no jurisdiction over the cases because the o Issue means first delivery of the instrument complete in form
offenses charged and committed outside its territory. to a person who takes it as a holder
CA acquitted the spouses of estafa on the ground that the checks were o Holder payee or indorsee of a bill or note who is in possession
not made in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of their of it or the bearer thereof.
insurance. However it affirmed the trial courts finding that the spouses o Peo v. Yabut - The place where the bills were written, signed, or
were guilty of having violated B.P. Blg. 22. dated does not necessarily fix or determine the place where they
Spouses maintain that the prosecution failed to prove any of the were executed. What is of decisive importance is the delivery
essential elements of the crime under B.P. Blg. 22 was committed within thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential
the RTC of Malabon. Spouses Lim claim that considering that the checks to its consummation as an obligation. An undelivered bill or note
were issued, delivered, and dishonoured in Kalookan City, the trial court is inoperative. Until delivery, the contract is revocable. And the
of Malabon exceeded its jurisdiction when it tried the case and extended issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a
judgment theron. person who takes it as a holder, which means the payee or
indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the
Issue: bearer thereof." Delivery of the check signifies transfer of
WON the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it tried the case and rendered possession, whether actual or constructive, from one person to
judgment thereon. another with intent to transfer title thereto .
4. Although LINTON sent a collector who received the checks from
Held: petitioners at their place of business in Kalookan City, they were actually
No. issued and delivered to LINTON at its place of business in Balut,
Navotas. The receipt of the checks by the collector of LINTON is not the
Ratio: issuance and delivery to the payee in contemplation of law.


Consequently, venue or jurisdiction lies either in the RTC of Kalookan litigation.
City or Malabon.
As Assistant City Fiscal, the source of the salary of Mabanto, is public funds. He
receives his compensation in the form of checks from the Department of Justice
DELA VICTORIA V BURGOS through Loreto as City Fiscal of Mandaue City and head of office.
Under Sec. 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, every contract on a
negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the
RAUL filed a complaint for damages against Assistant City Fiscal Mabanto,
instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As ordinarily understood,
judgment was rendered ordering Mabanto to pay P11,000.00.
delivery means the transfer of the possession of the instrument by the maker or
drawer with intent to transfer title to the payee and recognize him as the holder
A notice of garnishment was served on Fiscal Loreto(Boss of Mabanto) ordering thereof.
him to not release the salary checks of Mabanto.
Raul considered the checks as no longer government funds and presumed
Fiscal Loreto moved to quash the notice of garnishment claiming that he was delivered to the payee based on the last sentence of Sec. 16 of the Negotiable
not in possession of any money belonging to Mabanto, except his salary and Instruments Law which states: "And where the instrument is no longer in the
RATA checks, but that said checks were not yet properties of Mabanto, until possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional
delivered to him. He further claimed that, as such, they were still public funds delivery by him is presumed."
which could not be subject to garnishment.
Yet, the presumption is not conclusive because the last portion of the
Raul claimed that the checks of Mabanto, Jr., had already been released through provision says "until the contrary is proved."
petitioner by the Department of Justice duly signed, making them not public
funds therefore may be garnished.
Proof to the contrary is its own finding that the checks were in the custody of
petitioner. Inasmuch as said checks had not yet been delivered to Mabanto, Jr.,
Issue: they did not belong to him and still had the character of public funds.

(1) W/N a check (still in the hands of the maker or its duly authorized The salary check of a government officer or employee such as a teacher does
representative) is owned by the payee before physical delivery? not belong to him before it is physically delivered to him. Until that time the
check belongs to the government.
(2) W/N the salary check of a government official or employee funded with
public funds can be subject to garnishment? And public funds may not be subject of garnishment due to public policy.


1. NO, there is need for actual delivery FACTS:

2. NO
Development Bank of Rizal (DBR) filed a complaint for sum of money against
1) To enforce payment of the balance on a promissory note covering
Garnishment is considered as a species of attachment for reaching credits P1,032,450.02; and
belonging to the judgment debtor owing to him from a stranger to the


2) To enforce payment of two checks, executed by Sima Wei, patable to SAN MIGUEL CORP V PUZON JR
petitioner, and drawn against the China Banking Corp., to pay the
balance due on the promissory note. Facts:
Bartolome V. Puzon, Jr., (Puzon) owner of Bartenmyk Enterprises, was a dealer
It was found that Sima Wei executed and delivered DBR a promissory note of beer products of petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) for Paraaque City.
engaging to pay the petitioner bank or order the amount of Php 1.8 Million Puzon purchased SMC products on credit. To ensure payment and as a business
before 24 June 1983 with 32% interest per annum. Respondent also issued two practice, SMC required him to issue postdated checks equivalent to the value of
crossed checks payable to the bank but said checks were not delivered to the the products purchased on credit before the same were released to him. Said
petitioner-payee or to any of its representative. But for reasons not shown, checks were returned to Puzon when the transactions covered by these checks
these checks came into the possession of a Lee Kian Huat who deposited the were paid or settled in full.
checks without the petitioners indorsement. Despite the fact that checks were
crossed and payable to petitioner bank and bore no indorsement of DBR, the On December 31, 2000, Puzon purchased products on credit amounting
checks were encashed. to P11,820,327 for which he issued, and gave to SMC, Bank of the Philippine
Islands (BPI) Check Nos. 27904 and 27903 to cover the said transaction.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner has cause of action against all the defendants.
On January 23, 2001, Puzon, together with his accountant, visited the SMC
Sales Office in Paraaque City to reconcile his account with SMC. During that
visit Puzon allegedly requested to see BPI Check No. 17657. However, when he
No, the Bank has no cause of action against all defendants. If anything at all, it
got hold of BPI Check No. 27903 which was attached to a bond paper together
is Sima Wei who will have an action against her co-defendants, if the allegations
with BPI Check No. 17657 he allegedly immediately left the office with his
in the complaint are found to be true.
accountant, bringing the checks with them.
Courts have long recognized the business custom of using printed checks.
However, the mere fact that one has signed and filled up a check does not give SMC sent a letter to Puzon on March 6, 2001 demanding the return of the said
rise any to any liability on his part, until and unless the check is delivered to the checks. Puzon ignored the demand hence SMC filed a complaint against him for
payee or his representative. Check is not only a written evidence of a contract theft with the City Prosecutors Office of Paraaque City.
right but also a property.
Delivery of an instrument means transfer of possession, actual or constructive W/N the ownership of the subject check was transferred to SMC (To
from one person to another. Without the initial delivery of the instrument, there substantiate the complaint of theft)
can be no liability. Moreover, the delivery of checks in payment of an obligation
does not constitute payment unless they are cashed or their value impaired Held:
through the fault of the creditor. The checks were not delivered to DBR and NO
unless Sima Wei proves that she has been relieved from liability on the
promissory note by some other cause, petitioner bank has a right of action Ratio:
against her for the balance of her loan due. However, petitioner bank does not
have cause of action against the other defendants since the checks were never Sec. 12. Antedated and postdated The instrument is not invalid for the reason
delivered to it. Thus, it has never acquired interest therein. only that it is antedated or postdated, provided this is not done for an illegal or
fraudulent purpose. The person to whom an instrument so dated
The first cause of action with regards the liability of Sima Wei was remanded to is delivered acquires the title thereto as of the date of delivery. (Underscoring
the trial court. supplied.)

Note however that delivery as the term is used in the aforementioned provision
means that the party delivering did so for the purpose of giving effect thereto.
Otherwise, it cannot be said that there has been delivery of the negotiable EXTRA: Elements of theft: (1) that there be a taking of personal property; (2)
instrument. Once there is delivery, the person to whom the instrument is that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to
delivered gets the title to the instrument completely and irrevocably. gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that
the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against
If the subject check was given by Puzon to SMC in payment of the obligation, persons or force upon things.
the purpose of giving effect to the instrument is evident thus title to or
ownership of the check was transferred upon delivery. However, if the check Section 17
was not given as payment, there being no intent to give effect to the
instrument, then ownership of the check was not transferred to SMC.
(Note: This is a Criminal Law/Estafa case. Even sa case syllabus walang Nego
The evidence of SMC failed to establish that the check was given in part. So konti ratio !).
payment of the obligation of Puzon. There was no provisional receipt or
official receipt issued for the amount of the check. What was issued was a
receipt for the document, a "POSTDATED CHECK SLIP."
Furthermore, the petitioner's demand letter sent to respondent states "As per
company policies on receivables, all issuances are to be covered by post-dated SAIDECOR is a marketing business, which later got engaged in the
checks. However, you have deviated from this policy by forcibly taking away the business of soliciting funds and investments from the public.
check you have issued to us to cover the December issuance." Notably, the term The corporation guaranteed an 800% return of investment within 15 or
"payment" was not used instead the terms "covered" and "cover" were used. 21 days. Investors were given coupons containing the capital and the
return on the capital collectible on the date agreed upon.
Defendants Martin Romero and Ernesto Rodriguez were the president
Although the petitioner's witness, Gregorio L. Joven III, states in paragraph 6 of and the general manager of the corporation, respectively.
his affidavit that the check was given in payment of the obligation of Puzon, the Complainant Ernesto Ruiz was a radio commentator of Radio DXRB in
same is contradicted by his statements in paragraph 4, where he states that "As Butuan City. He came to know the business of SAIDECOR when he
a standard company operating procedure, all beer purchases by dealers on interviewed Romero and Rodriguez about the corporations investment
credit shall be covered by postdated checks equivalent to the value of the beer operations.
products purchased"; and in paragraph 9 where he states that "the Complainant Ernesto Ruiz went to SAIDECOR office in Butuan City to
transaction covered by the said check had not yet been paid for. make an investment. After handing over the amount of P150,000 to
Ernesto Rodriguez, he received a postdated Butuan City Rural Bank
When taken in conjunction with the counter-affidavit of Puzon where he Check instead of the usual redeemable coupon.
states that "As the liquid beer contents are paid for, SMC returns to me the The check indicated P1, 000, 200.00 as the amount in words, while
corresponding PDCs or requests me to replace them with whatever was the the amount in figures was for P1, 200, 000.00
unpaid balance." it becomes clear that both parties did not intend for the check Complainant Ruiz did not notice the discrepancy.
to pay for the beer products. The evidence proves that the check was accepted, When the check was presented to the drawee bank, it was dishonored
not as payment, but in accordance with the long-standing policy of SMC to for insufficiency of funds. Both accused could not be located after such
require its dealers to issue postdated checks to cover its receivables. The check incident.
was only meant to cover the transaction and in the meantime Puzon was to pay For their defense, Romero testified that when he issued the check, the
for the transaction by some other means other than the check. This being so, corporation had a deposit of P14, 000, 000 (P14M) and a balance of P4M
title to the check did not transfer to SMC; it remained with Puzon. The second when SAIDECOR ended operations.
element of the felony of theft was therefore not established. Petitioner was not Romero also said that he was not aware that such check was
able to show that Puzon took a check that belonged to another. dishonored.
Romero was contending that there was discrepancy between the
words and the figures thats why the check was dishonored.
real estate mortgage. Demand and Dishonor Waived. Holder may accept
partial payment reserving his right of recourse again each and all indorsers.

W/N the ambiguity in the check was the reason why it was not honored and not (Purpose mining industry)
insufficiency of funds. CONCEPCION MINING COMPANY, INC.,

"Please issue check to

Mr. Jose S. Sarte"

The corporation was saying that had the amount in words been Upon the filing of the complaint, Concepcion Mining allege that the co-
followed, they would have sufficient funds for withdrawal. This was not maker of the promissory note Don Vicente Legarda died on February 24,
accepted by the court. 1946 and his estate is in the process of judicial determination.
The rule in the Negotiable Instruments Law is that where there is Concepcion Mining prayed that the estate of deceased Vicente Legarda be
ambiguity in the amount in words and in the amount in figures. It included as party-defendant. However, the court ruled that the inclusion of
would be the amount in words that would prevail. Legardas estate is unnecessary and immaterial, in accordance with the
However, this rule of interpretation finds no application in the case. provisions of Article 1216 of the Deny Civil Code and section 17 (g) of the
The agreement was perfectly clear that at the end of 21 days, the Negotiable Instruments Law.
investment of P150, 000.00 would become P1, 200, 000.00. A motion to reconsider this decision was denied and Concepcion Mining
asked that the effects of the judgment be suspended for the reason that the
deceased Vicente Legarda should have been included as a party-defendant
PNB V CONCEPCION MINING and his liability should be determined in pursuance of the provisions of the
promissory note. (In short, they argue that the money claim should be
Facts: made against the estate of Legarda).

This action was instituted by PNB to recover from Concepcion Mining the Issue: W/N Legardas estate should be included as party-defendant in order to
face of a promissory note the pertinent part of which reads as follows: recover the value of the instrument.

Held: No.
Manila, March 12, 1954
NINETY DAYS after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of
the Philippine National Bank . . . . Section 17 (g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides:

In case it is necessary to collect this note by or through an attorney-at-law, SEC. 17. Construction where instrument is ambiguous. Where the
the makers and indorsers shall pay ten percent (10%) of the amount due on language of the instrument is ambiguous or there are omissions therein,
the note as attorney's fees, which in no case shall be less than P100.00 the following rules of construction apply:
xxx xxx xxx
exclusive of all costs and fees allowed by law as stipulated in the contract of
(g) Where an instrument containing the word "I promise to pay" is Garment Manufacturing, Inc., they were in blank, the typewritten entries
signed by two or more persons, they are deemed to be jointly and did not appear prior to the time he affixed his signature.
severally liable thereon.
And Article 1216 of the Civil Code of the Philippines also provides as follows: Whether or not Fermin Canlas is solidarily liable together with Pinch
Manufacturing Corporation and Shozo Yamaguchi
ART. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary
debtors or some of them simultaneously. The demand made against one Ruling
of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be Yes, Fermin Canlas is solidarily liable on each of the promissory notes bearing
directed against the others so long as the debt has not been fully his signature.
By virtue of Section 17, as the promissory note was executed jointly The promissory notes are negotiable instruments and must be
and severally by the same parties Concepcion Mining Company, Inc., governed by the Negotiable Instruments Law.
Vicente L. Legarda and Jose S. Sarte the payee of the promissory note - Persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes
had the right to hold any one or any two of the signers of the promissory are makers and are liable as such.
note responsible for the payment of the amount of the note. - By signing the notes, the maker promises to pay to the order
of the payee or any holder according to the tenor thereof.
- Canlas, being one of the co-makers of the promissory notes,
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK V COURT OF APPEALS cannot escape the liability arising therefrom.

Facts An instrument containing the words "I promise to pay" and signed by
Fermin Canlas (private respondent) was the Treasurer of Worldwide two or more persons are deemed to bejointly and severally liable.
Garment Manufacturing, Inc. Shozo Yamaguchi was the President/Chief - The fact that the singular pronoun is used indicates that the
Operating Officer. Canlas and Yamaguchi were authorized, by virtue of promise is individual as to each other.
Board Resolution No. 1, to apply for credit facilities with Republic - Each of the co-signers is deemed to have made an
Planters Bank (petitioner) in the forms of export advances and letter of independent singular promise to pay the notes in full.
credit/trust receipts accommodations.
Republic Planters Bank issued 9 promissory notes in favor of A joint and several note is one in which the makers bind themselves
Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc. The promissory notes were both jointly and individually to the payee so that all may be sued
signed by the petitioner and private respondent. The promissory notes together for its enforcement, or the creditor may select one or more as
contained the following typewritten entries: I/we jointly and severally the object of the suit.
promise to pay to the order of the Republican Planters Bank xxx; and - A joint and several obligation in common law corresponds to a
(in) his personal capacity. civil law solidary obligation.
Worldwide Manufacturing, Inc. changed its corporate name to Pinch - One of several debtors bound is liable for the entire amount
Manufacturing Corporation. and not merely for his proportionate share.
Petitioner bank filed a complaint for the recovery of sums of money - By making a joint and several promise to pay to the order of
covered by the 9 promissory notes. The complaint was originally brought Republic Planters Bank, Fermin Canlas assumed the solidary
against Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc. It was later amended to liability of a debtor. The payee may choose to enforce the notes
make Pinch Manufacturing Corporation as the defendant. against him alone or jointly with Yamaguchi and Pinch
Fermin Canlas denied having issued the promissory notes. According Manufacturing Corporation as solidary debtors.
to him, he was not an officer of Pinch Manufacturing Corporation. He
was an officer of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc. He claimed A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation, and
that when he issued the promissory notes in behalf of Worldwide whether effected by special act or under a general law, has no effect on
the identity of the corporation, or on its property, rights, or liabilities. agreed terms of the loan, leaving the borrowers-debtors to do
The change of name meant only the continuation of the old juridical nothing but read the terms and conditions therein printed and to
entity, the corporation bearing the same name is still bound by the acts sign as makers or co-makers.
of its agents if authorized by the Board. - When the notes were given to private respondent Fermin
Canlas for his signature, the notes were complete in the sense
As a general rule, officers or directors under the old corporate name that the spaces for the material particular had been filled up by
bear no personal liability for acts done or contracts entered into by the bank as per agreement.
officers of the corporation, if duly authorized. Where the agent signs his - The only evidence that the notes were signed blank was
name but nowhere in the instrument has he disclosed the fact that he is Canlas' self serving testimony. The notes were not incomplete
acting in a representative capacity or the name of the third party for instruments. Neither were they given to private respondent
whom he might have acted as agent, the agent is personally liable to Fermin Canlas in blank as he claims. Thus, Section 14 of the
the holder of the instrument and cannot be permitted to prove that he Negotiable Instruments Law is not applicable.
was merely acting as agent of another and parol or extrinsic evidence is
not admissible to avoid the agent's personal liability.

Canlas cannot claim that the promissory notes were blank when he
signed. A careful examination of the notes shows that they are the
stereotype printed form of promissory notes generally used by
commercial banking institutions to be signed by their clients in obtaining
loans. Such printed notes are incomplete because there are blank
spaces to be filled up on material particulars such as payee's name,
amount of the loan, rate of interest, date of issue and the maturity date.
The terms and conditions of the loan are printed on the note for the
borrower-debtor's perusal. An incomplete instrument which has been
delivered to the borrower for his signature is governed by Section 14 of
the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides:
Sec. 14. Blanks; when may be filled. -- Where the instrument is
wanting in any material particular, the person in possession
thereof has a prima facie authority to complete it by filling up
the blanks therein. x x x x In order, however, that any such
instrument when completed may be enforced against any person
who became a party thereto prior to its completion, it must be
filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and
within a reasonable time. x x x x.

The SC believed the bank's testimony that the notes were filled up
before they were given to private respondent Fermin Canlas and
defendant Shozo Yamaguchi for their signatures as joint and several
- By signing the notes above their typewritten names, they
bound themselves as unconditional makers.
- This is the customary procedure of commercial banks of
requiring their clientele to sign promissory notes prepared by the
banks in printed form with blank spaces already filled up as per