Travel-On, INC. vs.

CA and Arturo Miranda

FACTS:
 Travel-On is a travel agency selling airline tickets on commission basis for and in behalf
of different airline. Arturo Miranda has a revolving credit line with Travel On. Miranda
procured tickets from Travel-On on behalf of airline passengers and derived commissions
therefrom.
 Travel-On filed a suit before the RTC to collect on 6 checks issued by Miranda with a
prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary attachment and attorney’s fees.
 Travel-On averred that it sold and delivered various airline tickets to Miranda and to
settle the said account, Miranda paid various amount in cash and in kind and thereafter,
issued 6 postdated checks which were all dishonored by drawee banks. Additionally,
Miranda made another payment reducing his indebtedness.
 Miranda admitted having transactions with Travek-On and claimed that he already fully
paid and even overpaid his obligations and refunds were in fact due him. He argued that
he issued the postdated checks for purposes of accomodation, as he had in the past
accorded similar favors to Travel-On and testified that he issued the checks in the name
of Travel-On in order that its GM, Montilla, could show to Travel-On BoD that the
accounts receivable of the company were still good.
 Montilla on the other hand explained that the accomodation extended to Travel-On by
Miranda related to situations where one or more of its passengers needed money in
HongKong and upon request of Travel-On, Miranda would contact his friends in
HongKong to advance HongKong money to the passenger. Then the passengers upon
return would pay Travel-On and credit to the account of Miranda
 RTC: ordered Travel-On to pay Miranda an amount representing the overpayments by
Miranda ruling that Miranda’s indebtedness to Travel-On was not satisfactorily
established and that the postdated checks were issued not for the purpose of encashment
but for accomodation.
 CA: affirmed the decision of trial court. HENCE THIS PETITION
 SC:
o Travel-On urged that the postdated checks are per se evidence of liability on the
part of Miranda and assuming such checks were for accomodation, Miranda is
still liable considering that Travel-On was a holder for value.
ISSUE: WON the checks were per se evidence of laibility
RULING:
YES
Check which is regular on its face is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a
valuable consideration and every person whose signature appears thereon is deemed to have
become a party thereto for value. Thus, mere introduction of the instrument sued on in evidence
prima facie entitles the plaintiff to recovery. The rule is quite settled the NI is presumed to have
been given or indorsed for sufficient consideration unless otherwise contradicted and overcome
by other competent evidence.
In this case, all the checks issued by Mirande to Travel-On were presented for payment
by the latter would lead to no other conclusion than that these checks were intended for
encashment. There is nothing in the checks themselves that states otherwise.
In accommodation transaction recognized by the NIL, an accommodating party lends his
credit to the accommodated party, by issuing or indorsing a check which is held by the payee or
indorsee as a holder in due cours who gave full value therefor to the accommodated. The
accommodated party receives or realizes full value which the accommodated party then must
repay the accommodating party, unless the cours of accommodating party inteded to make a
donation ot the accommodated party.
In this case, Travel-On was payee of all 6 checks, it presented these checks for payment
at the drawee bank but the checks bounced. Travel-On obviously was not an accommodated
party; it realized no value on the checks which bounced.
Travel on was entitled to the benefit of the statutory presumption that it was a HIDC that
the checks were supported by valuable consideration. Thus SC believe and hold Miranda liable
on the 6 checks involved. Those chekcs were themselves constitued evidence of indebtedness of
Miranda.
Remegio Ong vs. People and CA
FACTS:
 Marcial De Jesus and Ong are both businessmen owning Sevrin Integrated Resources and
Master Metal Craft respectively. Ong, in fact, one time retained the services of de Jesus
as adviser n technical and financial matter and as President of EroCool industries.
 Ong approached de Jesus in his place of work and requested to be accommodated a loan
which he needed to pay the 13th month pay of his employees at Master Metal Craft. De
Jesus complied by issuing Ong a Producers Bank check payable to Ong’s Master Metal
Craft.
 In order to ensure the payment of Ong, De Jesus required Mr. Ong to issue a post-dated
check for the same amount, hence Ong issued a FEBTC check. The Procuders Bank
check was encashed for value and was debited to Ong’s account.
 Meanwhile the FEBTC check was deposited by De Jesus in his account byt was
dishonored for lack of sufficient funds. De jesus verbally notified Ong of the bounced
check but Ong failed to pay. Hence De Jesus filed this case.
 RTC rendered decision finding Ong guilty of BP 22.
 CA: dismissed the appeal for lack of merti and affirmed RTC decision. HENCE THIS
PETITION
ISSUE: WON CA erred in affirming the RTC convicting Ong of BP 22 when the check was only
a contingent payment of the loan and on the basis of Xerox coppy demand letter.
RULING:
NO.
In the case of Cruz vs. CA, SC rule that what the law punishes is the issuance of
bouncing check not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to
its issuance. Mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing of
worhtless check or check that has been dishonored. In this case, Ong’s argument that the check
was issued without consideration is inconsequential. The law invariably declares the mere act of
issuing a worthless check as malum prohibitum.
In actions based upon a NI, it is unnecessary to aver or prove consideration for
consideration is imported and presumed from the fact that it is a NI. The presumption exists
whether the words “value received” appear on the instrument.
Additionally, it is well settled in criminal jurisprudence that where the issue is on of
credibility of witnesses, the applellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the RTC
considering it was in a better position to settle such issue,.
In this case, RTC had seen the original copy of the demande letter and had been satisfied with
identification thereof by complainant De Jesus.
Jose Cayanan vs. North Start International
FACTS:
 North Start is a corporation engaged in the travel agency business while Cayanan is the
owner/GM of JEAC International Manangement a recruitment agency.
 Balagtas the GM of North Star, in accommodation and upon instruction of its client,
Cayanan sent US$60,000 to View Sea Ventures in Nigeria from her personal account in
Citibank. Balagtas sent again US$40,000 to View See Ventures with US$15,000 coming
from Cayanan. Likewise, North Star extended credit to Cayanan for airplane tickets of his
clients.
 To cover for obligations, Cayanan issued five checks to North Star.
 When presented for payment, the checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds and
other because of stop payment order from Cayanan.
 North Start informed Cayanan that the checks were dishonored and demanded payment.
Cayanan failed to settled his obligation hence North Start instituted an action for
violation of BP 22 before MeTC.
 MeTC: found Cayanan guilty ordering him to pay north star.
 RTC: acquitted Cayanan of the criminal charges and held that there is no basis for the
imposition of civil liability. RTC ratiocinated that the checks issued were presented
beyond the 90 days period hence there is no violation of BP 22 and accused is not
considered to have committed the offense. There being no offense committed accused is
not criminally. Liable and there would be no basis for imposition of civil liability.
 CA: reversed the decision of the RTC insofar as the Civil aspect is concered and held
Cayanan civilly liable for the checks. HENCCE THIS PETITION.
ISSUE: WON CA erred in holding him civilly liable for the value fo the checks.
RULING:
NO.
Upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that
the same was issued for valuable consideration which may consist either in some right, interest,
profit, or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forebearance, detriment,
loss, or some responsibility to act or labor, service given, suffered or undertaken by the other
side. Under the NIL it is presumed that every party to an instrument acquires the same for a
consideration.
In this case, Cayanan argued that there was no consideration for the issuance of the
checks. Sadly, Cayanan did not present any credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The
evidence also shows that it was Cayanan who had contract with VSV as he was sneding contract
workers to Nigeria. Balagtas’ particiaption was merely to send the money through telegraphic
transfer in exchange for the checks issued by Cayanan to North Star.
The fact the Cayanan specifially name North Star as the payee of the chekcs is an admission of
his liability to North Star and not Balagtas..