Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

“The withdrawal of the money from the drawee bank to avoid liability on the checks cannot prejudice the

rights of holders
in due course.”

STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC., v. COURT OF APPEALS AND NORA B. MOULIC


G.R. No. 101163, January 11, 1993
BELLOSILLO, J.:

Doctrine:
“A prima facie presumption exists that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course.” (Sec. 52. NIL)

Facts:
Private respondent Nora B. Moulic issued to Corazon Victoriano, as security for pieces of jewelry to be sold on
commission, two(2) post-dated checks in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) each. Thereafter, the payee
(Victoriano) negotiated the checks to the petitioner State Investment House Inc. Failure to sell the jewelry, private
respondent returned them to the payee and since the instrument negotiated, it can no longer be retrieved. Moulic then,
withdrew her funds from the drawee bank. Upon presentment for payment, the checks were dishonored for insufficiency
of funds. The petitioner then demanded for payment and requested that it be paid in cash instead. However, private
respondent averred that no such notice was given to her. Petitioner filed a complaint to recover the value of the checks
plus attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. Private respondent answered that, she incurred no obligation on the
checks because the jewelry was never sold and the checks were negotiated without knowledge and consent.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the petitioner is a holder of the checks in due course
2. Whether or not the private respondent is entitled to a Notice of Dishonor
3. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to be paid by the private respondent

Ruling:
1. Yes.
Under Sec. 52 of NIL, 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.

In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that, on their faces the post-dated checks were complete and
regular; petitioner bought these checks from the payees, Corazon Victoriano, before their due dates; petitioner
took these checks in good faith and for value, albeit at a discounted price; and the petitioner was never informed
nor made aware that these checks were merely issued to payee as security and not for value. Hence, the
presence of all the conditions constitute that the petitioner is a holder in due course.

2. No.
Under Sec. 114 of NIL, When notice need not be given to drawer. - Notice of dishonor is not required to be given
to the drawer in either of the following cases: (a) Where the drawer and drawee are the same person; (b) When
the drawee is fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract; (c) When the drawer is the person to
whom the instrument is presented for payment; (d) Where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the
drawee or acceptor will honor the instrument; (e) Where the drawer has countermanded payment.

Therefore, the private respondent’s actuations leave much to be desired. She did not retrieve the checks when
she returned the jewelry. She simply withdrew her funds from her drawee bank and transferred them to another
to protect herself. After withdrawing her funds, she could not have expected her checks to be honored. In other
words, she was responsible for the dishonor of her checks, hence, there was no need to serve her a Notice of
Dishonor.
3. Yes.
Under Sec. 52 of NIL, presence of all the conditions constitute a party a holder in due course, thus, it holds the
instruments free from any defect of title of prior parties, and from defenses available to prior parties among
themselves.

In the present case, the petitioner satisfied all the conditions provided for by Sec. 52 of NIL, hence, the
petitioner is indeed a holder in due course, it may, therefore, enforce full payment of the checks. Since the
private respondent is the drawer, the petitioner may demand such full payment from the private respondent.