Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
“For value received, I hereby promise to pay Juan Santos or order the
sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000) with interest of 12% thirty (30)
days from date hereof.
(Signed) Pedro Cruz”
(d) Where there is a conflict between the written and printed
provisions of the instrument, the written provisions prevail;
(e) Where the instrument is so ambiguous that there is doubt
whether it is a bill or note, the holder may treat it as either at his
election;
(f) Where a signature is so placed upon the instrument that it is not
clear in what capacity the person making the same intended to
sign, he is to be deemed an indorser;
(g) Where an instrument containing the word "I promise to pay" is
signed by two or more persons, they are deemed to be jointly and
severally liable thereon.
Kinds of Holder
Holder for value – one who has given value for an instrument
issued or negotiated to him.
Holder To hold the instrument free from any defect of title of prior
parties and free from defenses available to the parties
In Due among themselves.
To enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount
Course thereof against all parties liable thereon,
Sec. 52
Sec. 52. 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 has 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.
Holder not In due Course
No, there is no prima facie authority here for B to fill up the blank because there was no
intention on the part of C to convert the paper into a negotiable instrument. Fraud in fact is
committed which is a real defense.
Problem #2
Pocholo signed a blank check and kept it in his safe. This was stolen
by Edwin who filled in the amount and placed a fictitious person as
payee signed the name of the payee and indorsed the same to
Paolo, Paolo to Patrick, Patrick to Sally, Sally to Jeddah, Jeddah to
Rhia. All of the subsequent indorsers as well as the holder were all
holders in due course.
Question: May Rhia proceeded against Pocholo in case of dishonor by
the drawee bank?
Answer: NO… because there was no valid DELIVERY which is essential
to the validity of the instrument.
Continuation….
Under the same set of facts, if Pocholo as well as the drawee bank
dishonors the check, may Rhia proceed against the Jeddah?
Answer: Yes, because Jeddah as an indorser warrants that the
instrument is what it purports to be and if it is dishonored and
necessary proceedings for dishonor taken, she shall pay the holder,
Rhia.
Under the same set of facts, in case of dishonor by the drawee
bank and/or Pocholo and the other indorsers, is Edwin liable?
Answer: Yes, he was the one responsible for the theft, the filling up
and subsequent negotiation of the instrument.
Section 16 Complete but Not Delivered
Instrument
As a general rule, a negotiable instrument like any other written contract, has no legal
inception or existence, as such, until it has been delivered in accordance with the
purpose and intent of the parties. Without the initial delivery of the instrument, there can
be no liability thereon. Moreover, such delivery must be intended to give effect to the
instrument.
An undelivered instrument is inoperative because delivery is a prerequisite to liability.
However, if the instrument is no longer in the possession of the person who signed it and it
is complete in its terms, "a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the
contrary is proved
If a complete instrument is found in the possession of an
immediate party or a remote party other than a holder in
due course, there is a prima facie presumption of delivery
but subject to rebuttal.
If a complete instrument is in the hands of a holder in due
course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him is
conclusively presumed.
General rule. — As a general rule, only persons whose
signatures appear on an instrument are liable thereon.
Exceptions. —
The following are the exceptions to the general rule:
(a)Where a person signs in a trade or assumed name. (Sec. 18)
(b)The principal is liable if a duly authorized agent signs on his own
behalf (Sec. 19.
(c)(c) In case of forgery (Sec. 23.), the forger is liable even if his
signature does not appear on the instrument
(d)(d) Where the acceptor makes his acceptance of a bill on a
separate paper (Sec. 134.); and (
(e)(e) Where a person makes a written promise to accept a bill before
it is drawn. (Sec. 135.)
Sec. 18 Liability of person signing in trade
or assumed name.
(2) Where agent acted with abuse of authority given•—But where the agent has
authority to do the particular act in question, his abuse of such authority is not a
defense against a bona fide holder for value. (Bryant, Powis & Bryant v. Quebec
Bank [1893], A.C. 170,179.) Where by resolution of the board of directors, A, the
chairman of the corporation, is authorized to accept bills drawn by R against the
deposit of securities and A accepts a bill drawn by P signing "per pro," and
without requiring the deposit of security and the bill is negotiated to a bona fide
holder, held: the company is liable.
SECTION 22. Effect of Indorsement By
Infant or Corporation
EXAMPLE:
I promise to pay to the order of B the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) 30 days after date.
(Sgd.) A