Ang Tek Lian vs.

CA PROVISION:
G.R. No. L-2516 | vol# SCRA pg# | Sept 25, 1950 | Bengzon, J.
Petition: Petition to review on certiorari a decision of the CA
Petitioners: Ang Tek Lian
Respondents: Court of Appeals
Sec 9
DOCTRINE
• A check payable to the order of “cash” is a check payable to bearer, and
the bank may pay it to the person presenting it for payment without the
drawer’s indorsement.
FACTS
• Ang Tek Lian was convicted of estafa in the CFI for having issued a
rubber check. CA affirmed the verdict.
• Knowing he had no funds therefor, Ang Tek Lian drew a check upon the
China Banking Corporation for the sum of P4,000, payable to the order
of “cash.”
• He delivered it to Lee Hua Hong in exchange for money which the latter
handed in the act.
• The next day, the check was presented by Lee Hua Hong to the drawee
bank for payment.
o It was dishonored for insufficiency of funds – balance of the deposit
on both dates was only P335.
• Lee Huan Hong testified that on Nov 16, 1946, appellant (Ang Tek Lian)
went to complainant’s (Lee Hong) office at Manila and asked him to
exchange the said check – alleging that he needed badly the sum of
P4,000 represented by the check but he could not withdraw it from the
bank – it being already closed.
• Relying upon his assurance that:
o he had sufficient funds in the bank
o and because they used to borrow money from each other even
before the war
o Ang Tek Lian owns a hotel and restaurant known as North Bay
Hotel,
Lee Hong delivered to him on the same date the amount of P4000 in
cash.
• Despite repeated efforts to notify him that the check had been
dishonored by the bank, Ang Tek Lian could not be located anywhere
until he was summoned by the CFI in view of the complaint for estafa.
Art 315 (d) (2) of RPC
Estafa is committed “by postdating a check, or issuing such check in
payment of an obligation the offender knowing that at the time he had no
funds in the bank, or the funds deposited by him in the bank were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check, and without informing the payee
of such circumstances.”
RULING & RATIO
1. Estafa is committed by issuing a postdated check or an ordinary check to
accomplish the deceit.
2. It is argued however that as the check had been made payable to
“cash” and had not been endorsed by Ang Tek Lian, the defendant
is not guilty of the offense charged.
a. It was argued that when the party accepted the check from the
appellant, he did so with full knowledge that it would be
dishonored upon presentment. Appellant could not have acted
fraudulently because the complainant, in so accepting the check
as it was drawn, must be considered, by every rational
consideration, to have done so fully aware of the risk he was
running thereby.
3. Court: Under the NIL, a check drawn payable to the order of “cash” is a
check payable to bearer, and the bank may pay it to the person
presenting it for payment without the drawer’s indorsement.
4. Of course, if the bank is not sure of the bearer’s identity or financial
solvency, it has the right to demand identification and/or assurance
against possible complications.
a. The bank may therefore require, for its protection, that the
indorsement of the drawer – or of some other person known to it
– be obtained.
b. But if the bank is satisfied of the identity and/or the economic
standing of the bearer who tenders the check for collection, it will
pay the instrument without further question, and it would incur no
liabilty to the drawer in thus acting.
5. Anyway, the form of the check was unconnected with its dishonor as it
was returned because the drawer had insufficient funds – not because
the indorsement was lacking.
DISPOSITION
• Decision affirmed.

ISSUES
1. W/N Lian could be held liable for estafa – Yes

Kool Kids 2016 | ALS 2D N-09-02 Ang Tek Lian v CA.pdf

AURELIO | BALLESTEROS | BATUNGBACAL | BILIRAN | CADIENTE | DONES | GALLARDO | GESTA | GUBATAN | PINTOR | SY | TOLEDO Page 1 of 1