Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

NEGO Holder #01

Vicente R. De Ocampo v. Anita Gatchalian et. al.


GR No. L-15126 30Nov1961
J. Labrador
Parties:
Anita Gatchalian drawer of check
Manuel Gonzales husband of Matilde G.; recipient of check from Anita Gonzales
Matilde Gonzales wife of Manuel; her hospitalization expenses were paid by Manuel using
the check
Vicente de Ocampo recipient and holder of check from Gonzales
FACTS
Manuel Gonzales offered to sell a car to Anita Gatchalian, who was looking for a car for her
husbands use. Manuel represented that he was duly authorized by Ocampo Clinic, the car
owner, to look for buyer, negotiate and accomplish the sale of the car. Anita requested Manuel
to bring the car and Certificate of Registration for her husband to see; but Manuel said that he
can bring the car on the condition that Anita gives him a check to show to the owner as
evidence of Anitas good faith in the intention to buy the car.
Anita gave Manuel a check in the amount of P600, on the condition that the check will only be
for safekeeping and will be returned to her the following day when the car and Certficate of
Registration will be brought by Manuel.
Manuel failed to appear the following day, so Anita issued a Stop Payment Order on the
check with the drawee bank, which was issued without previous notice to holder.
Meanwhile, Manuel delivered the check to Ocampo Clinic, in payment of the hospitalization
expenses of his wife, Matilde Gonzales. Vicente de Ocampo gave Manuel change of P158.25
difference of P600 value of check less P441.75 total hospitalization fees.
Vicente de Ocampo sued Manuel for estafa for not paying his obligations to the Ocampo Clinic
and for receiving the cash balance of the check.
Action in the CFI: recovery of the value of the P600 check
CFI decision: sentenced Anita Gatchalian et al to pay de Ocampo the P600 value of the check
plus legal interest plus costs of suit
On appeal: Defendants contend that the check is not a negotiable instrument because
Gatchalian had no intention to transfer the instruments as it was only for safekeeping so there is
no delivery required by law; and de Ocampo is not a holder in due course because there was no
negotiation prior to his acquiring the possession of the check and that he received it with notice
of defect in the title of the holder, Manuel Gonzales

NEGO Holder #01

ISSUE before the Supreme Court


Whether de Ocampo may be considered as a holder in due course and consequently recover the
value of the check (i.e. whether the presumption of holder in due course will apply)
HELD/RATIO
NO, because de Ocampo was guilty of gross negligence in not finding out the nature of the title
and possession of Manuel Gonzales, amounting to legal absence of good faith; hence he cannot
be considered as holder of the check in good faith.
The presumption does not apply in this case because there was a defect in the title of the holder
because the instrument is not payable to him or to bearer and the circumstances show that that
Manuels title is at least suspicious, if not defective.
***
Section 52(d) of the NIL provides that in order that one may be considered a holder in due
course, it is necessary that at the time the instrument was negotiated to him, he had no notice
of any xxx defect in the title of the person negotiating it.
Meanwhile, Section 59 of the NIL states that every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder
in due course.
The Court found circumstances that should have put de Ocampo to inquiry as to why and
wherefore the possession of the check by Manuel and why he used it to pay Matildes
hospitalization expenses:
De Ocampo was not aware of the circumstances how the check was delivered to Manuel
Gatchalian had no obligation whatsoever with Ocampo Clinic
The check had two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner, which practice means that the
check could only be deposited but may not be converted into cash.
These considerations would seem sufficient to justify the ruling that Gatchalian should not be
allowed to recover the value of the check.
Where a holders title is defective or suspicious, it cannot be stated that the payee acquired the
check without the knowledge, of said defect in holders title, and for this reason the
presumption that it is a holder in due course or that it acquired the instrument in good faith does
not exist.
Where the payee required the check under circumstances which should have put it to inquiry,
why the holder had the check and used it, to pay his own personal account, the duty developed
upon it to prove that it actually acquired said check in good faith.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi