Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
EN BANC Manila, Philippines

VICENTE R. DE OCAMPO & CO Plaintiffs -versusANITA C. GATHALIAN et. Al. Defendants x------------------------x Case Number: L-15126

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

The real issue and leitmotif in this case, when we come right down to it, is as simple as it is basic

HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

Is the plaintiff a holder in due course and therefore has the right to collect the face value of the check from the defendant? SEC. 52 of Negotiable Instruments Law states What constitutes a holder in due course. A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upon its face; (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact,

DE OCAMPO VS GATCHALIAN CASE NUMBER L 15126 Motion for Reconsideration

page 2

(c) That he took it in good faith and for value: (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

1. That on September 8, 1953 defendant Anita C. Gatchalian who was then interested in looking for a car for the use of her husband and family, was shown and offered a car by Manuel Gonzales who was accompanied by by Emil Fajardo, the latter being personally known to defendant Anita C. Gatchalian,

2. That Manuel Gonzales represented to defendant Anita C. Gatchalian that he was duly authorized by the owner of the car, to look for a buyer of the said car and to negotiate for and accomplish said date, but such facts were not known to the plaintiff.

3. That Anita Gatchalian made the check to comply with the wishes of the alleged owner of the car,

4. That upon the set date Manuel Gonzales never met with them thus promting Anita Gatchalian to issue a stop payment order to the bank,

5. That the said check in issue was used by Manuel Gonzales to pay his wifes medical bill in Ocampo Clinic where Vicente Ocampo was the physician of Ocampos wife,

DE OCAMPO VS GATCHALIAN CASE NUMBER L 15126 Motion for Reconsideration

page 3

6. That the bill paid by Manuel Gonzales amounted to Php 441.25 using the check issued by Anita Gatchalian . prompting Ocampo to give Manuel Gonzales Php 158.25 as change for the difference of the face value of the check and the hospital bill.

III. DISCUSSION

SEC. 52 of Negotiable Instruments Law states What constitutes a holder in due course. A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upon its face; (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact, (c) That he took it in good faith and for value: (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.

There can be no doubt that a proper interpretation of the act is that a payee may be a holder in due course under any circumstances in which he meets the requirements of Sec. 52,in the case at bar the four requisites that is enumerated in Sec. 52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law were complied with the plaintiff Ocampo, that such instrument is complete and regular upon its face that it was not previously dishonored that he took took it in good faith and for value, as such is justified by accepting as payment for the hospitalization bills and such value was the amount of the bill, and that he had no notice of any infirmity.

DE OCAMPO VS GATCHALIAN CASE NUMBER L 15126 Motion for Reconsideration

page 4

Sec. 191 defines holder as the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer therof. Since holder as defined in Sec. 191 includes a payee who is in possession the word holder in the first clause of Sec. 52 and in the second subsection may be replaced by the definition in Sec. 191 so as to read a holder in due course is a payee or indorsee who is in possession( Brannans NIL 6th ed.)

Supreme Court the case at bar already stated that:

As the check was payable to the plaintiff appellee, and was entrusted to Mnauel Gonzales by Gatchalian, the delivery to Manuel Gonzales was the delivery by his own agent; in other words, Manuel Gonzales was the agent of the drawer Anita Gatchalian insofar as the possession of the check is concerned. So when the agent drawer Manuel Gonzales negotiated the check with the intention of getting its value from the plaintiff appellee negotiation took place.

Furthermore, the claim of defendant Anita Gatchalian that such instrument was not not intended for indorsement or for any other purpose other than what was agreed upon is without merit. Anita Gatchalian having the capacity to pay for such large amount therefore gives out the fact that she is with good standing in the society, with such much precaution is expected from her, therefore her negligence creates a legal consequence that she must answer to and such is to pay Ocampo the face value of the said check. Had it not been for her compulsive and irresponsible decision not of which had happened. If she had been cautious in dealing with the scrupulous Manuel Gonzales Ocampo had not filed for such recovery. Why would we put the blame of negligence and non investigation of transaction to Ocampo, why not look into the negligence of Gatchalian, which in the first place has been the root of this case and discussion.

DE OCAMPO VS GATCHALIAN CASE NUMBER L 15126 Motion for Reconsideration

page 5

I would like to respectfully remind the honorable court that there are two sides of the scale of justice and that such scale must always been at par, if not what then now would be the protection of innocent person against the transactions that rooted from ignorance and negligence of the root of the action.

Wherefore, with such premises the defendant respectfully prays that the decision of the supreme court be reversed and set aside in favor of the plaintiff Ocampo, and any other relief that the court deems just and equitable.

San Juan, Metro Manila for Manila, 14 September 2011.

ATTY. LARA BRUSOLA - BOBIS IBP OR No. 480001/ Tabaco City/ 14 September 2011 PTR No. 65432 / Tabaco / / 14 September 2011 Roll of Attorneys No. 489900