Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/120729917/Montinola-vs-Pnb
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:11:37+00:00

Document:
ENRIQUE P. MONTINOLA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., defendants-appellees. Quijano, Rosete and Lucena for appellant. Second Assistant Corporate Counsel Hilarion U. Jarencio for appellee Philippine National Bank. Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Augusto M. Luciano for appellee Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental. MONTEMAYOR, J.: In August, 1947, Enrique P. Montinola filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Philippine National Bank and the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental to collect the sum of P100,000, the amount of Check No. 1382 issued on May 2, 1942 by the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental to Mariano V. Ramos and supposedly indorsed to Montinola. After hearing, the court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint with costs against plaintiff-appellant. Montinola has appealed from that decision directly to this Court inasmuch as the amount in controversy exceeds P50,000. There is no dispute as to the following facts. In April and May, 1942, Ubaldo D. Laya was the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental. As such Provincial Treasurer he was ex officio agent of the Philippine National Bank branch in the province. Mariano V. Ramos worked under him as assistant agent in the bank branch aforementioned. In April of that year 1942, the currency being used in Mindanao, particularly Misamis Oriental and Lanao which had not yet been occupied by the Japanese invading forces, was the emergency currency which had been issued since January, 1942 by the Mindanao Emergency Currency Board by authority of the late President Quezon. About April 26, 1942, thru the recommendation of Provincial Treasurer Laya, his assistant agent M. V. Ramos was inducted into the United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) as disbursing officer of an army division. As such disbursing officer, M. V. Ramos on April 30, 1942, went to the neighboring Province Lanao to procure a cash advance in the amount of P800,000 for the use of the USAFFE in Cagayan de Misamis. Pedro Encarnacion, Provincial Treasurer of Lanao did not have that amount in cash. So, he gave Ramos P300,000 in emergency notes and a check for P500,000. On May 2, 1942 Ramos went to the office of Provincial Treasurer Laya at Misamis Oriental to encash the check for P500,000 which he had received from the Provincial Treasurer of Lanao. Laya did not have enough cash to cover the check so he gave Ramos P400,000 in emergency notes and a check No. 1382 for P100,000 drawn on the Philippine National Bank. According to Laya he had previously deposited P500,000 emergency notes in the Philippine National Bank branch in Cebu and he expected to have the check issued by him cashed in Cebu against said deposit. Ramos had no opportunity to cash the check because in the evening of the same day the check was issued to him, the Japanese forces entered the capital of Misamis Oriental, and on June 10, 1942, the USAFFE forces to which he was attached surrendered. Ramos was made a prisoner of war until February 12, 1943, after which, he was released and he resumed his status as a civilian. About the last days of December, 1944 or the first days of January, 1945, M. V. Ramos allegedly indorsed this check No. 1382 to Enrique P. Montinola. The circumstances and conditions under which the negotiation or transfer was made are in controversy.
"pay to the order of" — in rubber stamp and in violet color are placed about one inch from the top.000 of the check and for this reason. V. that when the first check for P20. Below "Enrique P. Ramos. Montinola. in typewriting are words and figures also in typewriting. the edges of the check appear to have been burned. and the balance of P400. Ramos is hand printed in green ink. This indorsement which now appears on the back of the document is described in detail by trial court as follows: The endorsement now appearing at the back of the check (see Exhibit A-1) may be described as follows: The woods.000 and P25. V. Ramos.000 in Japanese military notes but that Montinola gave him only two checks of P20. and each tablet valued at P100. Exhibit A. are a facsimile of the signature of Ramos. Montinola". one for Montinola and the other for Ramos. V. V. "517 Isabel Street" and about ¹/8 of an inch therefrom.000.000 would be paid in a few days. needing money with which to buy foodstuffs and medicine. that he and Ramos finally agreed to the sale of the check for P850.000 Montinola would pay him P90.000 of the check.000. Ramos duly indorsed the check to him. payable in installments. Montinola P30. but there are words stamped apparently in rubber stamp which. Ramos.000 was issued by Montinola. Ramos further said that in exchange for this assignment of P30. What appears thereon is the indosement testified to by Montinola and described by the trial court as reproduced above. both signed by Montinola and M. According to Montinola.000. according to Montinola. he asked Ramos to hand print it because Ramos' signature was not clear. went to see President Carmona of the Philippine National Bank in Manila about said check. There is a signature which apparently reads "M. leaving a balance unpaid of P45. was to pay Ramos P90. Ramos which had been written by him at the back of the check. V." To the above description we may add that the name of M. Ramos" also in green ink but made in handwriting. that after examining it President Carmona told him that it was negotiable but that he should not let the Japanese catch him with it because possession of the same would indicate that he was still waiting for the return of the Americans to the Philippines. evidencing said payment. 1944. Simeon Ramos Jr. This is followed by the words "Enrique P. that when the second check for P25. accompanied by his agents and by Ramos himself.000 in Japanese military notes. he (Simeon) prepared another document with two copies. at the back of the document he wrote in longhand the following: Pay to the order of Enrique P. with the understanding that the balance of P45. The indorsement or writing described by M. sometime in June.000 only. Ramos in his turn told the court that the agreement between himself and Montinola regarding the transfer of the check was that he was selling only P30. that upon payment of the full price. Montinola" in typewriting which is approximately 5/8 an inch below the stamped words "pay to the order of". Before going into a discussion of the merits of the version given by Ramos and Montinola as to the indorsement or writing at the back of the check. P450. he (Simeon) prepared a document evidencing said payment of P20. namely.000 Japanese military notes. . does not now appear at the back of said check.According to Montinola's version. who told the court that the agreement between Ramos and Montinola was that the latter. M. offered to sell him the check. four bottles of sulphatia sole. The balance to be deposited in the Philippine National Bank to the credit of M.000 was paid to Ramos in Japanese military notes in five installments. V. to be sure that it was genuine and negotiable. for the sale to him of P30. each bottle containing 1. In this he was corroborated by Atty.000 was paid in kind.000 tablets. it is well to give a further description of it as we shall later. under the signature.000 was issued by Montinola. that of this amount.
in its well-prepared decision. he (Montinola) had to resort to the mutilation of the document. Ramosaccording to the latter-does not now appear at the back of the check. V. threatening Montinola with bodily harm. Ramos".000 only. we quote with approval what the trial court presided over by Judge Conrado V.000 in Japanese Military Notes as consideration for the check? The following observations are in point: (a) According to plaintiff's witness Gregorio A. blotting and smearing and pasting of the check renders it difficult if not impossible to read some of the words and figures on the check. and in its place was placed the present indorsement appearing thereon. the circumstances surrounding its preparation. the oval line in violet. bottled. As to what was really written at the back of the check which Montinola claims to be a full indorsement of the check. However. But the check is badly mutilated. there is a big blot with indelible ink about the right middle portion. The balance to be deposited to the credit of M. Sanchez. burning. This writing was in some mysterious way obliterated. where cut bear traces of burning and searing.When Montinola filed his complaint in 1947 he stated therein that the check had been lost. signed by M. Had Montinola really paid in full the sum of P850." of the words "Enrique P. and that as far as he could remember this writing did not appear on the instrument and he had no knowledge as to how it happened to be there. It has already been described in detail. but not black and sharp as the blot itself. Exhibit A-1. and that in order to justify the non-delivery of the document and to discourage Ramos from getting it back. says on these points: The allegedly indorsement: "Pay to the order of Enrique P. the supposed participation of M. and so in lieu thereof he filed a supposed photostic copy. Roughly. which back bears a larger smear right under the blot. it may be stated that looking at the face of the check (Exhibit A) we see that the left third portion of the paper has been cut off perpendicularly and severed from the remaining 2/3 portion. finally. and its condition can best be appreciated by seeing it. V. As to how said present indorsement came to be written. we agree with trial court that the original writing of Ramos on the back of the check was to the effect that he was assigning only P30. as aforesaid. Ramos demanded the return of the check to him. In explanation of the mutilation of the check Montinola told the court that several months after indorsing and delivering the check to him. a triangular portion of the upper right hand corner of said remaining 2/3portion has been similarly cut off and severed. torn and partly burned. the entire check is pasted on both sides with cellophane. Ramos in it and the writing originally appearing on the reverse side of the check. Montinola" and the line in the form of cane handle crossing the word "street" in the words and figures "517 Isabel Street" in the endorsement Exhibit A-1 "unusual" to him. A different indorsement. Obviously Cortado had no recollection as to how such marks ever were stamped at the back of the check. V. even death by himself or his guerrilla forces if he did not return said check. the edges of the severed portions as well as of the remaining major portion. . Montinola the amount of P30. enclosing "P. he presented the check itself and had its face marked Exhibit A and the back thereof Exhibit A-1. all this tearing. Said present indorsement occupies a good portion of the back of the check. Cortado. and to keep and attach this triangular portion and the rectangular ¹/3 portion to the rest of the document. which seems to have penetrated to the back of the check (Exhibit A-1). now appears.000 of the value of the document and that he was instructing the bank to deposit to his credit the balance. at the trial.
is found in the following: That Ramos came to his house. on the other hand. And then. but in some deposit outside thereof and that Ramos promised to return the next day. . Conceding at the moment these facts to be true. that is. testified that Ramos carried in his pocket the said rubber stamp as well as the ink pad. in his own house. Speaking of the rubber stamp used at the back of the check and which produced the words "pay to the order of". 1945. that the same night he tore the check into three parts. Atadero. armed with a revolver. a nearby house. and it was on the table of the upper floor of the house. and that upon the return of Ramos the next day he showed the two parts of the check. bottled with ink on both sides torn three parts. during liberation. and upon seeing the condition thereof Ramos did not bother to get the check back. and finally sign his name too far below the main indorsement. that is. the most logical conclusion is that Ramos wanted the check at all costs because Montinola did not acquire the check to such an extent that it borders on intentional cancellation thereof (see Sections 119-123 Negotiable Instruments Law) there is room to believe that Montinola did not have so much investments in that check as to adopted an "what do I care?" attitude. together with the stamp pad used to stamp the same. and which according to him involves his life savings. on the other hand. that when he informed Ramos that he did not have it in the house. (c) Another circumstances which bears heavily upon the claim of plaintiff Montinola that he acquired the full value of the check and paid the full consideration therefor is the present condition of said check. Montinola" "and "517 Isabel Street". Montinola and Ramos returned in group to the house of Montinola. there could not be any reason why Ramos should have threatened Montinola as stated by the latter. Montinola 517 Isabel Street". burned the torn edges and bottled out the registration at the back. the rubber stamp was already in the house of Montinola. he could have very well sought police protection or transferred to some place where Ramos could not bother him. and stamped it in his house. A-1) stated that Ramos typewrote these words outside of the premises of Montinola. the question is: Why should Montinola be afraid of Ramos? Montinola claims that Ramos went there about April. threatened his life and demanded from him the return of the check. The only reason advanced by plaintiff as to why tore check. approximate intentional cancellation. Under the circumstances. really Ramos did not have anything more to do with this check for the reason that Montinola had obtained in full the amount thereof. Montinola. Cortado stated that when he (Cortado). If he believed he was standing by his rights. The acts done by the very plaintiff on a document so important and valuable to him. speaking of the endorsement as it now appears at the back of the check (Exh. burned the sides with a parrafin candle to show traces of burning. it is pasted in cellophane. Montinola. the alleged owner thereof. One thing difficult to understand is why Ramos should go into the laborious task of placing the rubber stamp "Pay to the order of" and afterwards move to the typewriter and write the words "Enrique P. The unusually big space occupied by the indorsement on the back of the check and the discrepancies in the versions of Montinola and his witness Cortado just noted. It is now so unclean and discolored.(b) Again Cortado. and with portions thereof burned-all done by plaintiff. the triangle on the right upper part and the torn piece on the left part. testified that Ramos typewrote the words "Enrique P. create doubts as to whether or not really Ramos made the indorsement as it now appears at the back of Exhibit A. He also said that he placed the blots in indelible ink to prevent Ramos — if he would be forced to surrender the middle part of the check — from seeing that it was registered in the General Auditing Office.
It this is true. Phil. Laya assured the court that there . Laya. Ramos sold to him P30. Phil. Oriental Misamis. When Montinola testified this way in court. Montinola told Provincial Treasurer Elizalde of Misamis Oriental that "Ramos endorsed it (referring to check) to me for goods in kind. those words did not appear under the signature of Ubaldo D. and P400. Laya wasex officio agent of the Philippine National Bank branch in that province.000 (in Japanese money) was actually paid by said plaintiff to Ramos. he took extreme pains and precautions to save the check from the possible ravages of the war. we stated that as Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental. In that letter Exhibit 3. because as drawee alone. Montinola did not mention the cash that he paid for the check. On the face of the check (Exh.000. during the trial the original check Exhibit A was produced in court. A) we now find the words in parenthesis "Agent. was hot after the possession of that check. At the time of the filing of the complaint the check was allegedly lost. partially blotted. Ramos who equally assured the court that when he received the check and then delivered it to Montinola. registered said check with the General Auditing Office and he knew that Ramos. discolored and pasted with cellophane. In a straightforward manner and without vacillation Laya positively testified that the check Exhibit A was issued by him in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental and that the words "Agent. on A...000 of the face value thereof in consideration of the sum of P90. medicine. and Montinola evidently is trying to hold the Philippine National Bank liable in that capacity of drawer. pp. so much so that a photostatic copy thereof was merely attached to the complaint (see paragraph 7 of the complaint). 31-33. In court he testified that he paid P450. considering the fact that it involves his life savings. 1947." In said letter Exhibit 3. testifying in court. inasmuch as the bank has not yet accepted or certified the check. In this he was corroborated by the payee M. obviously he overlooked a letter he wrote to the provincial treasurer of Cagayan. (d) It seems that Montinola was not so sure as to what he had testified to in reference to the consideration he paid for the check. and that the words in parenthesis "Agent. National Bank" under the signature of Laya. We again quote with approval the pertinent portion of the trial court's decision: The question is reduced to whether or not the words. The condition of the check as it was produced is such that it was partially burned. pp. Brief of Appellee. it may yet avoid payment.) At the beginning of this decision. stated that he issued the check only as Provincial Treasurer. and that before the alleged loss. etc. From the foregoing the court concludes that plaintiff Montinola came into the possession of the check in question about the end of December 1944 by reason of the fact that M. had it photographed. Phil. Laya. of which only one-half or P45. badly mutilated. National Bank" which now appear on the check Exhibit A were not typewritten below his signature when he signed the said check and delivered the same to Ramos. V.000 worth of sulphatiazole in January 1945 to complete the alleged consideration of P850. Phil. V. Exhibit 3 the record. since liberation. But a comparison between the photostatic copy and the original check reveals discrepancies between the two.000 in cash from June to December 1944. 14-20. that it was mixed up with household effects is not plausible. then the bank is not only drawee but also a drawer of the check. received by him for the use of the guerrillas. National Bank" were added after Laya had issued the check. Ubaldo D. purportedly showing that he issued the check as agent of the Philippine National Bank. National Bank" now appearing under his signature did not appear on the check when he issued the same.And there is the circumstance of the alleged loss of the check. "Agent. What is worse is that Montinola's excuse as to how it was lost.000 Japanese money. Yet. dated May 1. (R.
The check. For. at the time the check was issued.000 issued by the Provincial Treasurer of Lanao to Ramos. Laya and the printed words "Provincial Treasurer" were added in the check after the same was issued by the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental. and that in issuing the check (Exh. But what renders more probable the testimony of Laya and Ramos is the fact that the money for which the check was issued was expressly for the use of the USAFFE of which Ramos was then disbursing officer. his testimony was corroborated by the payee M. he expected to have it cashed at said Cebu bank branch against his deposit of P500.000 of said currency in the Philippine National Bank branch in Cebu. and not by the Philippine National Bank which has no such obligation.000 in cash was paid to Ramos by Laya from the funds. not of the bank but of the Provincial Treasury. he deposited P500. Ramos." Besides.000 check to Ramos. and this is borne by the fact that the signature of Laya was countersigned by the provincial auditor.000 in emergency notes and the P100. The Provincial Auditor at that time had no connection in any capacity with the Misamis Oriental agency of the Philippine National Bank. Phil. Said check for P100. Laya already knew that Cebu and Manila were already occupied. In the normal course of events the check could not have been issued by the bank. we may safely conclude as we do that the words "Agent. one of the reasons for the issuance of the emergency notes in Mindanao was for this purpose. when he issued check in his capacity as agent of the Misamis Oriental agency of the Philippine National Bank the said check must be countersigned by the cashier of the said agency — not by the provincial auditor. From all the foregoing. Upon the foregoing circumstances the court concludes that the words "Agent. National Bank" below the signature of Laya and the printed words "Provincial Treasurer". In the first place. There is no reason known to us why Provincial Treasurer Laya should issue the check (Exh. The balance of P400. A). He could not have therefore issued the check-as a bank employeepayable at the central office of the Philippine National Bank.could not be any mistake as to this. He also testified that the said check was issued by him in his capacity as provincial treasurer of Misamis Oriental and that is why the same was countersigned by Provincial Auditor Flores. too there is the circumstance that this check was issued by the provincial treasurer of Lanao to Ramos who requisitioned the said funds in his capacity as disbursing officer of the USAFFE. As already stated. upon receiving a relatively considerable amount of these emergency notes for his office. After considering the testimony of the one and the other. National Bank' below the signature of Ubaldo D. And then. A) as agent of the Philippine National Bank. Phil. is that the check was issued by Laya only as Provincial Treasurer and as an official of the Government which was under obligation to provide the USAFFE with advance funds. The logical conclusion. Said USAFFE were being financed not by the Bank but by the Government and. therefore. The very . presumably. A) were added or placed in the instrument after it was issued by Provincial Treasurer Laya to M.000 was issued to complete the payment of the other check for P500. V. so much so that upon the delivery of the P400. V.000. according to Laya. the court finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports Laya's testimony. according to Provincial Treasurer Laya. Phil. Exhibit A is not what we may term in business parlance. National Bank" now appearing on the face of the check (Exh. not the bank cashier. as part of the advance funds for the USAFFE in Cagayan de Misamis. Plaintiff Montinola on the other hand testified that when he received the check Exhibit A it already bore the words "Agent. Ramos. "certified check" or "cashier's check. Laya credited his depository accounts as provincial treasurer with the corresponding credit entry.
obviously. We tried to verify this discrepancy by going over the original records of the Court of First Instance so as to compare the copy of Annex A in the complaint. Unless the plaintiff in making this copy or transcription in the complaint committed a serious omission which is decisive as far as the bank is concerned. not as agent of the Bank. but said original Annex A appears to be missing from the record. For instance. namely. particularly of the phrase "Agent. contended that if the check in question had been issued by the provincial treasurer in his capacity as agent of the Philippine National Bank. said treasurer would have placed below his signature the words "Agent of the Philippine National Bank". did M. said phrase did not appear on the face of the check. Exhibit A. that when a check is issued by the Provincial Treasurer as such. therefore. Laya. but by the bank cashier. important and worth nothing. the check is countersigned not by the Provincial Auditor who has nothing to do with the bank. the check having been issued by Laya as Provincial Treasurer. which was not done in this case. is missing. the inference is. Phil. Naturally. especially with the aid of a handlens. particularly the face of it (Exhibit A) in the complaint. there are other facts and circumstances involved in the case which support this view. 1382 particularly the face thereof (Exhibit A). National Bank" now appearing under the signature of the Provincial Treasurer on the face of the original check (Exhibit A). now we have in the list of exhibit a photostatic copy marked Annex A and Exhibit B. If Annex A also marked Exhibit B is the photostatic copy of the original check No. . Phil. National Bank" after he received the check. the letter A of the word "Agent" is toward the right of the tail of the beginning letter of the signature of Ubaldo D. the photostatic copy also marked Exhibit B and the face of the check. It is therefore evident that the Annex A now available is not the same original Annex A attached to the complaint in 1947. allegedly attached to the complaint a photostatic copy of said check and marked it as Annex A. then said photostatic copy should be a faithful and accurate reproduction of the check. Now. on Exhibit A. with the original Annex A. Ramos add or place those words below the signature of Laya before transferring the check to Montinola? Let us bear in mind that Ramos before his induction into the USAFFE had been working as assistant of Treasurer Laya as ex-officio agent of the Misamis Oriental branch of the Philippine National Bank. 1948. and later introduced in evidence for him as Exhibit E states that Laya issued the check "in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental". but according to the manifestation of counsel for the plaintiff dated October 15. That probably was the reason why the bank in its motion to dismiss dated September 2. and not as agent of the bank. How it disappeared is not explained. but that if the Provincial Treasurer issues a check as agent of the Philippine National Bank. There is one other circumstance. because he should have realized that following the practice already described. the addition of the words "Agent. 1948. made part of plaintiff's complaint. Ramos must have known the procedure followed there as to the issuance of checks. show notable differences and discrepancies. V. the words "Agent. National Bank" now appearing on the face of the check under the signature of the Provincial Treasurer. Of course. It is therefore more logical to believe and to find that the addition of those words was made after the check had been transferred by Ramos to Montinola. said photostatic copy now marked Annex A and Exhibit B was submitted on October 15. it is countersigned by the Provincial Auditor as was done on the check (Exhibit A). the phrase "Agent. Phil. National Bank" does not appear under the signature of the provincial treasurer. we find that in transcribing and copying the check. Phil. the photostatic copy. The plaintiff because of the alleged loss of the check. But in transcribing and copying said Annex A in his complaint. Referring to the mimeographed record on appeal filed by the plaintiffappellant. this same letter "A" however in Exhibit B is directly under said tail. Moreover. Phil. that at the time the complaint was filed. National Bank" could not change the status and responsibility of the bank. It is not likely. that Ramos had made the insertion of the words "Agent. But a minute examination of and comparison between Annex A.Annex C. 1947. and since the check bears the countersignature not of the Bank cashier of the Provincial Auditor. in compliance with the verbal order of the trial court.
000 to Montinola and to deposit the balance to his (Ramos) credit. in which case.000 of the check to Enrique P. one of which is that he became the holder before it was . A) to Montinola about the last days of December. This writing was obliterated and in its place we now have the supposed indorsement appearing on the back of the check (Exh. Exhibit B. National Bank". this same letter "k" however.000 Japanese military notes. On the basis of the facts above related there are several reasons why the complaint of Montinola cannot prosper. There are other notable discrepancies between the check Annex A and the photostatic copy. Exhibit A was issued by Laya in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental as drawer on the Philippine National Bank as drawee. Montinola claims that about June. The check was not legally negotiated within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Law. on Exhibit B is on the very border line itself or even before said border line. The first letter "a" of the word "National" is under "T" of the word "Treasurer" in Exhibit A. 1944 when Ramos supposedly approached him for the purpose of negotiating the check. he (Montinola) consulted President Carmona of the Philippine National Bank who assured him that the check was good and negotiable. V. was long overdue by about 2 ½ years. The closing parenthesis ")" on Exhibit A is a little far from the perpendicular green border line and appears to be double instead of one single line. An indorsement which purports to transfer to the indorsee a part only of the amount payable. but the same letter "N" is directly under the letter "I" of the word "Provincial" in Exhibit B. with the title Provincial Treasurer. 1945. Section 32 of the same law provides that "the indorsement must be an indorsement of the entire instrument. of which he was President. constitutes a material alteration of the instrument without the consent of the parties liable thereon. M. after liberation. Montinola for P90. Ramos also told the court that it is not true that he ever went with Montinola to see President Carmona about the check in 1944. Ramos sold P30. 1944. . and that when shown the check he told Montinola that it was stale. At the time of the transfer of this check (Exh. Neither can Montinola be considered as a holder in due course because section 52 of said law defines a holder in due course as a holder who has taken the instrument under certain conditions. . President Carmona on the witness stand flatly denied Montinola's claim and assured the court that the first time that he saw Montinola was after the Philippine National Bank. around August or September. It may therefore be considered. giving ground to the doubt that Exhibit B is a photostatic copy of the check (Exhibit A). the check which. Phil. The insertion of the words "Agent. A). (Section 124 of the Negotiable Instruments Law). National Bank" which converts the bank from a mere drawee to a drawer and therefore changes its liability. and so discharges the instrument. The writing made by Ramos at the back of the check was an instruction to the bank to pay P30. A-1). even then. a stable check. was payable on demand. as regards the relative position of the phrase "Agent.The letter "N" of the word "National" on Exhibit A is underneath the space between "Provincial" and "Treasurer". this same ")" on Exhibit B appears in a single line and is relatively nearer to the border line. Phil. 1945. The letter "k" of the word "Bank" in Exhibit A is after the green perpendicular border line near the lower right hand corner of the edge of the check (Exh. Of course. At most he may be regarded as a mere assignee of the P30. . being a negotiable instrument.000 sold to him by Ramos." Montinola may therefore not be regarded as an indorsee. reopened. or the first days of January. (as in this case) does not operate as a negotiation of the instrument. of which only P45. he is subject to all defenses available to the drawer Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental and against Ramos. but the same letter "a" in Exhibit "B" is just below the space between the words "Provincial" and "Treasurer".000 was paid by Montinola. However. We then have the following facts. as such assignee.
the same is hereby affirmed with costs. and that should this Court grant the prayer contained in the bank's brief that the check be later referred to the city fiscal for appropriate action. he asked this Court to allow him to withdraw the original check (Exh. In the second place. to the City Fiscal's Office for appropriate criminal action against the plaintiff-appellant if the facts so warrant. said check may no longer be available if the appellant is allowed to withdraw said document. And. in a petition signed by plaintiff-appellant Enrique P. In view of all the foregoing. Montinola is not even a holder because section 191 of the same law defines holder as the payee or indorsee of a bill or note and Montinola is not a payee. As already stated. The bank on March 2.000 for which Ramos sold him P30. And. the check was issued to M.000 of the value of the check. Ramos not as a person but M. A) together with all pertinent papers and documents in this case. he had no right to indorse it personally to plaintiff. Ramos had he retained the check may not now collect its value because it had been issued to him as disbursing officer. Ramos as the disbursing officer of the USAFFE. the money circulating in Mindanao and the Visayas was only the emergency notes and that the check was intended to be payable in that currency. In view of said opposition this Court resolution of March 6. let the Clerk of Court transmit to the city fiscal the check (Exh. Acting upon the petition contained in the bank's brief already mentioned. Ramos was no longer connected with the USAFFE but already a civilian who needed the money only for himself and his family. As already stated. Therefore. Also. as was stated by the trial court in its decision. 1950. Exhibit A. 1950 opposed the said petition on the ground that inasmuch as the appellant's cause of action in this case is based on the said check. Neither is he an indorsee for as already stated. Subsequently. Montinola speculated on the check and took a chance on its being paid after the war. 1950. once the decision becomes final. Montinola dated February 27. When Montinola received the check.000 could not have been issued to Ramos in his private capacity but rather in his capacity as disbursing officer of the USAFFE. 1942. V. we find this prayer: It is also respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court refer the check. for any action he may deem proper in the premises. he should have known that a check for such a large amount of P100. it is absolutely necessary for the court to examine the original in order to see the actual alterations supposedly made thereon. V. it was long overdue. finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from. Neither could it be said that he took it in good faith. expressing his willingness to submit it to the court whenever needed for examination and verification. he has not paid the full amount of P90. hence he transferred nothing to the plaintiff. Montinola must have known that at the time the check was issued in May.overdue. In the prayer for relief contained at the end of the brief for the Philippine National Bank dated September 27. and that at the time that Ramos sold a part of the check to him. at most he can be considered only as assignee. . It was negotiated in breach of trust. A) for him to keep. 1949. denied said petition for withdrawal. As observed by the trial court. as a mere assignee Montinola is subject to all the defenses available against assignor Ramos.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.