Tan Leonco v.

Go Inqui
8 Phil 531

1907

Johnson, J.

petitioners Tan Leonco

respondents Go Inqui
summary Drawee refused to pay cheque because of drawers order (not to pay). Drawer alleged
that Tan Leonco (holder) never duly protested after presentment, therefore, he
(drawer) cannot be held liable.
CH: In as much as the defendant had himself ordered the drawee not to pay the
said bill of exchange, protest and notice of nonpayment under these conditions,
was unnecessary in order to render the drawer, or defendant in this case, liable.

facts of the case

Instrument: Cheque - Bill of Exchange
Drawer: J.C. Mercantile Company (represented by Go Inqui)
Drawee: Lim Uyco
Executed and delivered to Tan Leonco (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff left for China in 1987, before leaving, he turned over the management of his abaca (hemp)
plantation to Tan Tonguan. Tan Tonguan obtained P800 worth of fiber that he delivered to Respondents
warehouse in exchange for a cheque.
Upon returning from China, Tan Leonco duly presented the Cheque to Lim Uyco, who refused payment
because he had received instructions to that effect from the company.
Respondents argument: Bill of exchange was not protested after presentment, and that there is some
question of the right of the plaintiff to recover upon said bill without the same having been duly protested.

issue
WON protest is needed in this case in order to hold respondent/drawer liable? NO (exception to the rule on
protest).

ratio
In as much as the defendant had himself ordered the drawee not to pay the said bill of exchange, protest
and notice of nonpayment under these conditions, was unnecessary in order to render the drawer, or
defendant in this case, liable.