Liability Under the Instrument

The answer is supplied by the applicable statutory provision found in Section 14 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL).

This provision applies to an incomplete but delivered instrument. Under this rule, if the maker or
drawer delivers a pre-signed blank paper to another person for the purpose of converting it into a
negotiable instrument, that person is deemed to have prima facie authority to fill it up. It merely
requires that the instrument be in the possession of a person other than the drawer or maker and
from such possession, together with the fact that the instrument is wanting in a material
particular, the law presumes agency to fill up the blanks.

In order however that one who is not a holder in due course can enforce the instrument against a
party prior to the instrument’s completion, two requisites must exist: (1) that the blank must be
filled strictly in accordance with the authority given; and (2) it must be filled up within a
reasonable time. If it was proven that the instrument had not been filled up strictly in accordance
with the authority given and within a reasonable time, the maker can set this up as a personal
defense and avoid liability. However, if the holder is a holder in due course, there is a conclusive
presumption that authority to fill it up had been given and that the same was not in excess of
authority.

In the present case, the petitioner contends that there is no legal basis to hold him liable both
under the contract and loan and under the check because: first, the subject check was not
completely filled out strictly under the authority he has given and second, Marasigan was not a
holder in due course.

Marasigan is Not a Holder in Due Course

The NIL defines a holder in due course, thus:

Sec. 52 — 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 had 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 present case, Marasigan’s knowledge that the petitioner is not a party or a privy to the
contract of loan, and correspondingly had no obligation or liability to him, renders him
dishonest, hence, in bad faith.

As correctly noted by the CA, his inaction and failure to verify, despite knowledge of that the
petitioner was not a party to the loan, may be construed as gross negligence amounting to bad
faith.