Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

SERRANO VS CA (1991)

Petition: Petition for Review


Petitioner: Loreta Serrano
Respondent: Court of Appeals and Long Life
PawnShop, Inc.
Ponencia: Feliciano, J.

DOCTRINE:
A pawn ticket is not a negotiable instrument.

FACTS:

1. In March 1968, petitioner Loreta Serrano bought
jewelry from Niceta Ribaya amounting to P48,500.

2. Serrano instructed Josefina Rocco, her private
secretary to pawn the jewelry.

3. Rocco pledged the said jewelry for P22,000 to
respondent Long Life Pawnshop, Inc. then escaped
with the money. A pawn ticket was also issued for
the said pieces of jewelry stating that it was
redeemable "on presentation by the bearer."

4. Three months later, Serrano came to the knowledge
that the pawnshop ticket for her jewelry was being
sold.

5. Serrano went to the pawnshop and told the owner,
Yu An Kiong not to permit anyone to redeem the
jewelry as she was the lawful owner thereof. She
also filed a complaint against Rocco with the police
authorities and the latter also ordered the pawnshop
to hold the jewelry and notify them in case someone
redeems the same.

6. On 10 July 1968, Yu An Kiong permitted Tomasa de
Leon, bearer of the pawnshop ticket, to redeem the
jewelry.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not pawnshop is liable
>Whether or not the pawn ticket is a negotiable
instrument
PROVISION:

ACT NO. 203 - THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES

Section 1. Form of negotiable instruments. - An
instrument to be negotiable must conform to the
following requirements:

(a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or
drawer;

(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to
pay a sum certain in money;

(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or
determinable future time;

(d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and

(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he
must be named or otherwise indicated therein with
reasonable certainty.

RULING + RATIO:
1. Yes
Having been duly notified by Serrano and the authorities
that the jewelry pawned to it was either stolen or
involved in an embezzlement of the proceeds of the
pledge, pawnbroker became duty bound to hold the
things pledged and to give notice to petitioner and the
police of any effort to redeem them.
Although the pawn ticket stated that the pawn was
redeemable by the bearer, it did not dissolve the duty of
the pawnbroker to hold the thing pledged. The pawn
ticket was not a negotiable instrument under the
Negotiable Instruments Law nor a negotiable document
of title under Articles 1507 et seq. of the Civil Code.
DISPOSITION: The Petition is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 September
1976 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Decision of the Court of First Instance dated 22 May
1970 is hereby REINSTATED in toto. No
pronouncement as to costs.