Source: https://wrmanuel.wordpress.com/tag/commercial-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:20:17+00:00

Document:
• The payment to the absconding sheriff by check in his name does not operate as a satisfaction of the judgment debt.
• Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment.
• A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary cheek, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. The obligation is not extinguished and remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized.
• As between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequence of a breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear the loss.
• Execution is for the sheriff to accomplish while satisfaction of the judgment is for the creditor to achieve the implementing officer’s duty should not stop at his receipt of payments but must continue until payment is delivered to the obligor or creditor.
• Laws are to be interpreted by the spirit which vivifies and not by the letter which killeth. Logic has its limits in decision making. We should not follow rulings to their logical extremes if in doing so we arrive at unjust or absurd results.
Amelia Tan filed a complaint for damages against petitioner. The Lower Court ruled in her favor. Upon appeal, the CA upheld the decision of the Lower Court with only minor modifications as to the damages to be awarded to Amelia Tan. The corresponding writ of execution was duly referred to Deputy Sheriff Emilio Z. Reyes for enforcement. Checks were in the name of Sheriff Reyes.
Four months later, Amelia Tan moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution stating that the judgment rendered by the lower court, and affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals, remained unsatisfied.
Petitioner answered that it has already satisfied its obligation, as evidenced by check vouchers signed and received by Sheriff Reyes. The Court has summoned the sheriff to explain the delay but apparently he absconded or disappeared.
Under ordinary circumstances, payment by the judgment debtor to the sheriff should be valid payment to extinguish the judgment debt. There are circumstances, however, which compel a different conclusion such as when the payment made by the petitioner to the absconding sheriff was not in cash or legal tender but in checks.
The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines.
The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired.
Consequently, unless authorized to do so by law or by consent of the obligee a public officer has no authority to accept anything other than money in payment of an obligation under a judgment being executed. Strictly speaking, the acceptance by the sheriff of the petitioner’s checks, in the case at bar, does not, per se, operate as a discharge of the judgment debt.
Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment (See. 189, Act 2031 on Negs. Insts.; Art. 1249, Civil Code; Bryan Landon Co. v. American Bank, 7 Phil. 255; Tan Sunco v. Santos, 9 Phil. 44; 21 R.C.L. 60, 61). A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary cheek, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. Mere delivery of checks does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished and remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized (Art. 1249, Civil Code, par. 3).
2. Yes. PAL created a situation which permitted the said Sheriff to personally encash said checks and misappropriate the proceeds thereof to his exclusive personal benefit. For the prejudice that resulted, the petitioner himself must bear the fault. As between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequence of a breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear the loss. (Blondeau, et al. v. Nano, et al., L-41377, July 26, 1935, 61 Phil. 625).
Strictly speaking execution cannot be equated with satisfaction of a judgment.
Execution is for the sheriff to accomplish while satisfaction of the judgment is for the creditor to achieve. Section 15, Rule 39 merely provides the sheriff with his duties as executing officer including delivery of the proceeds of his levy on the debtor’s property to satisfy the judgment debt. It is but to stress that the implementing officer’s duty should not stop at his receipt of payments but must continue until payment is delivered to the obligor or creditor.
• If payment had been in cash, no question about its validity or of the authority and duty of the sheriff to accept it in settlement of PAL’s judgment obligation would even have arisen. Simply because it was made by checks issued in the sheriff s name does not warrant reaching any different conclusion.
• As payment to the court discharges the judgment debtor from his responsibility on the judgment, so too must payment to the person designated by such court and authorized to act in its behalf, operate to produce the same effect.
• The failure of a sheriff to effect turnover and his conversion of the funds (or goods) held by him to his own uses, do not have the effect of frustrating payment by and consequent discharge of the judgment debtor.
• A judgment debtor who turns over funds or property to the sheriff can not reasonably be made an insurer of the honesty and integrity of the sheriff.
• It requires no particularly acute mind to note that a dishonest sheriff could easily convert the money and abscond. The fact that the sheriff in the instant case required, not cash to be delivered to him, but rather a check made out in his name, does not change the legal situation. PAL did not thereby become negligent; it did not make the loss anymore possible or probable than if it had instead delivered plain cash to the sheriffs.
• Risk is most appropriately borne not by the judgment debtor, nor indeed by the judgment creditor, but by the State itself.
• PAL had every right to assume that, as an officer of the law, Sheriff Reyes would perform his duties as enjoined by law. If a judgment debtor cannot rely on and trust an officer of the law, as the Sheriff, whom else can he trust?
• The duty of the sheriff to pay the cash to the judgment creditor would be a matter separate the distinct from the fact that PAL would have satisfied its judgment obligation to Amelia Tan, the judgment creditor, by delivering the cash amount due under the judgment to Sheriff Reyes.
• When Sheriff Reyes encashed the checks, the encashment was in fact a payment by PAL to Amelia Tan through Sheriff Reyes, an officer of the law authorized to receive payment, and such payment discharged PAL’S obligation under the executed judgment.
• If the PAL cheeks in question had not been encashed by Sheriff Reyes, there would be no payment by PAL.
• The payment of money to the sheriff having an execution satisfies it, and, if the plaintiff fails to receive it, his only remedy is against the officer (Henderson v. Planters’ and Merchants Bank, 59 SO 493, 178 Ala. 420).
• Payment of an execution satisfies it without regard to whether the officer pays it over to the creditor or misapplies it (340, 33 C.J.S. 644, citing Elliot v. Higgins, 83 N.C. 459). If defendant consents to the Sheriff s misapplication of the money, however, defendant is estopped to claim that the debt is satisfied (340, 33 C.J.S. 644, citing Heptinstall v. Medlin 83 N.C. 16).
When a negotiable instrument is dishonored for non-acceptance or non-payment, notice thereof must be given to the drawer and each of the indorsers, and those who are not notified shall be discharged from liability, except as provided otherwise.
It is incumbent upon a person, who seeks to enforce the indorser’s liability, to establish said liability by proving that notice was within the time, and in the manner, required by the law.
Salvador B. Chaves drew a check on the Philippine National Bank for P11,000 in favor of La Insular. This check was indorsed by the limited partners of La Insular, and then deposited by Salvador B. Chaves in his current account with the plaintiff, Asia Banking Corporation. Another check was drawn and deposited in similar fashion.
The amount represented by both checks was used by Salvador B. Chaves after they were deposited in the plaintiff bank, by drawing checks on the plaintiff. Subsequently these checks were presented by the plaintiff to the Philippine National Bank for payment, but the latter refused to pay on the ground that the drawer, Salvador B. Chaves, had no funds therein.
The lower court sentenced the defendant, as indorser, to pay the plaintiff P11,000. From this judgment the defendant appealed.
Yes. Section 89 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031) provides that, when a negotiable instrument is dishonored for non-acceptance or non-payment, notice thereof must be given to the drawer and each of the indorsers, and those who are not notified shall be discharged from liability, except where this act provides otherwise.
According to this, the indorsers are not liable unless they are notified that the document was dishonored. Then, under the general principle of the law of procedure, it will be incumbent upon the plaintiff, who seeks to enforce the defendant’s liability upon these checks as indorser, to establish said liability by proving that notice was given to the defendant within the time, and in the manner, required by the law that the checks in question had been dishonored. If these facts are not proven, the plaintiff has not sufficiently established the defendant’s liability. There is no proof in the record tending to show that plaintiff gave any notice whatsoever to the defendant that the checks in question had been dishonored, and there it has not established its cause of action.
Persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes are makers. Thus, even without the phrase “personal capacity,” a person who signs on the instrument twice will still be primarily liable as a joint and several debtor.
Astro was granted several loans by the Philippine Trust Company (Philtrust) amounting to P3,000,000.00 with interest and secured by three promissory notes. In each of these promissory notes, it appears that petitioner Roxas signed twice, as President of Astro and in his personal capacity. Roxas also signed a Continuing Surety ship Agreement in favor of Philtrust Bank, as President of Astro and as surety.
Thereafter, Philguarantee, with the consent of Astro, guaranteed in favor of Philtrust the payment of 70% of Astro’s loan, subject to the condition that upon payment by Philguanrantee of said amount, it shall be proportionally subrogated to the rights of Philtrust against Astro. As a result of Astro’s failure to pay its loan obligations, despite demands, Philguarantee paid 70% of the guaranteed loan to Philtrust. Subsequently, Philguarantee filed against Astro and Roxas a complaint for sum of money with the RTC of Makati.
Roxas disclaims any liability on the instruments, alleging, inter alia, that he merely signed the same in blank and the phrases “in his personal capacity” and “in his official capacity” were fraudulently inserted without his knowledge.
The trial court ruled in favor of Philguarantee, stating that if Roxas really intended to sign the instruments merely in his capacity as President of Astro, then he should have signed only once in the promissory note. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
Yes. In signing his name aside from being the President of Astro, Roxas became a co-maker of the promissory notes and cannot escape any liability arising from it. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes are makers. Thus, even without the phrase “personal capacity,” Roxas will still be primarily liable as a joint and several debtor under the notes considering that his intention to be liable as such is manifested by the fact that he affixed his signature on each of the promissory notes twice which necessarily would imply that he is undertaking the obligation in two different capacities, official and personal.
Moreover, an instrument which begins with “I”, “We”, or “Either of us” promise to pay, when signed by two or more persons, makes them solidary liable (Republic Planters Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93073, December 21, 1992). Having signed under such terms, Roxas assumed the solidary liability of a debtor and Philtrust Bank may choose to enforce the notes against him alone or jointly with Astro.
It devolves upon one to overcome the presumptions that private transactions are presumed to be fair and regular and that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns (Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116710). Bare allegations, when unsubstantiated by evidence, documentary or otherwise, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules of Court (Coronel vs. Constantino, G.R. No. 121069, February 7, 2003). Since Roxas failed to prove the truth of his allegations that the phrases “in his personal capacity” and “in his official capacity” were inserted on the notes without his knowledge, said presumptions shall prevail over his claims.
The stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a private carrier.
Plaintiff National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Charterer and defendant Vlasons Shipping, Inc. (VSI) as Owner, entered into a Contract of Voyage Charter Hire whereby NSC hired VSI’s vessel, the MV Vlasons I to make one voyage to load steel products at Iligan City and discharge them at North Harbor, Manila. The handling, loading and unloading of the cargoes were the responsibility of the Charterer.
The skids of tinplates and hot rolled sheets shipped were allegedly found to be wet and rusty. Plaintiff, alleging negligence, filed a claim for damages against the defendant who denied liability claiming that the MV Vlasons I was seaworthy in all respects for the carriage of plaintiff’s cargo; that said vessel was not a “common carrier” inasmuch as she was under voyage charter contract with the plaintiff as charterer under the charter party; that in the course its voyage, the vessel encountered very rough seas.
Whether or not the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers pursuant to which there exists a presumption of negligence against the common carrier in case of loss or damage to the cargo are applicable to a private carrier.
No. In a contract of private carriage, the parties may freely stipulate their duties and obligations which perforce would be binding on them. Unlike in a contract involving a common carrier, private carriage does not involve the general public. Hence, the stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a ship transporting commercial goods as a private carrier.
It has been held that the true test of a common carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods, provided it has space, for all who opt to avail themselves of its transportation service for a fee [Mendoza vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836, 842-843 (1952)]. A carrier which does not qualify under the above test is deemed a private carrier. “Generally, private carriage is undertaken by special agreement and the carrier does not hold himself out to carry goods for the general public.
Because the MV Vlasons I was a private carrier, the ship owner’s obligations are governed by the foregoing provisions of the Code of Commerce and not by the Civil Code which, as a general rule, places the prima facie presumption of negligence on a common carrier.
1. An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, indorser, without receiving value therefor and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of the taking of the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party. One cannot be an accommodation party if he signs as a drawee/acceptor.
2. As long as a commercial paper conforms with the definition of a bill of exchange, that paper is considered a bill of exchange. The nature of acceptance is important only in the determination of the kind of liabilities of the parties involved, but not in the determination of whether a commercial paper is a bill of exchange or not.
Plaintiff instituted against Aruego a case for the recovery of Php. 35,000.00 with daily interest plus attorney’s fees. The sum sought to be recovered represents the cost of the printing of “World Current Events,” a periodical published by the defendant. To facilitate the payment of the printing the defendant obtained a credit accommodation from the plaintiff. Thus, for every printing, the printer, Encal Press and Photo Engraving (EPPE), collected the cost of printing by drawing a draft against the plaintiff, said draft being sent later to the defendant for acceptance. As an added security for the payment of the amounts advanced to Encal Press and Photo-Engraving, the plaintiff bank also required defendant Aruego to execute a trust receipt in favor of said bank wherein said defendant undertook to hold in trust for plaintiff the periodicals and to sell the same with the promise to turn over to the plaintiff the proceeds of the sale of said publication to answer for the payment of all obligations arising from the draft.
Defendant argued that he is an accommodating party hence shall be liable only secondarily. The defendant also contends that the drafts signed by him were not really bills of exchange but mere pieces of evidence of indebtedness because payments were made before acceptance.
An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, indorser, without receiving value therefor and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of the taking of the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party.
In lending his name to the accommodated party, the accommodation party is in effect a surety for the latter. He lends his name to enable the accommodated party to obtain credit or to raise money. He receives no part of the consideration for the instrument but assumes liability to the other parties thereto because he wants to accommodate another.
In the instant case, the defendant signed as a drawee/acceptor. Under the Negotiable Instrument Law, a drawee is primarily liable. Thus, the defendant should not have signed as an acceptor/drawee. In doing so, he became primarily and personally liable for the drafts.
2. Yes. Pursuant to Section 126 of the NIL, a bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writting addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to order or to bearer.
As long as a commercial paper conforms with the definition of a bill of exchange, that paper is considered a bill of exchange. The nature of acceptance is important only in the determination of the kind of liabilities of the parties involved, but not in the determination of whether a commercial paper is a bill of exchange or not.

References: Art. 1249
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.