Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/120729827/De-Ocampo-vs-Gatchalian
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:49:30+00:00

Document:
both or either of them. Eleventh. — That defendants. Gatchalian issued a "Stop Payment Order" on the check. — That relying on these representations of Manuel Gonzales and with his assurance that said check will be only for safekeeping and which will be returned to said defendant the following day when the car and its certificate of registration will be brought by Manuel Gonzales to defendants. on or after 9 September 1953 for the hospitalization of the wife of Manuel Gonzales and neither or both of said defendants had assumed. the obligation of Manuel Gonzales or his wife for the hospitalization of the latter. delivered the same to the Ocampo Clinic. had no obligation or liability. — That plaintiff filed or caused to be filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila. it is most respectfully prayed that this agreed stipulation of facts be admitted and that the parties hereto be given fifteen days from today within which to submit . "B". a complaint for estafa against Manuel Gonzales based on and arising from the acts of said Manuel Gonzales in paying his obligations with plaintiff and receiving the cash balance of the check. defendant Anita C. — That the acts of acceptance of the check and application of its proceeds in the manner specified above were made without previous inquiry by plaintiff from defendants: Twelfth. WHEREFORE. Thirteenth.Fourth. had no arrangements or agreement with the Ocampo Clinic at any time prior to. Sixth. but that defendant Hipolito Gatchalian is personally acquainted with V. Eight. "3". Exh. with the drawee bank. on the following day as previously agreed upon. Ninth. — That the exhibits mentioned in this stipulation and the other exhibits submitted previously. accepted said check. "B". "B" from defendant Anita C. Exh. Said "Stop Payment Order" was issued without previous notice on plaintiff not being know to defendant. without necessity of formally offering them in evidence. Anita C. "1". directly or indirectly with the Ocampo Clinic before. Exh. Seventh. Exh. applying P441. — That defendants. — That defendants. that Manuel Gonzales executed and issued a receipt for said check. "B". both or either of them. Exhibit "D") representing the balance on the amount of the said check.25 (as per receipt. Gatchalian drew and issued a check. did not know personally Manuel Gonzales or any member of his family at any time prior to September 1953. de Ocampo. in payment of the fees and expenses arising from the hospitalization of his wife. defendant Anita C. — That Manuel Gonzales having received the check Exh. "B" and that said complaint was subsequently dropped. be considered as parts of this stipulation. R. — That plaintiff for and in consideration of fees and expenses of hospitalization and the release of the wife of Manuel Gonzales from its hospital. Fifth.75 (Exhibit "A") thereof to payment of said fees and expenses and delivering to Manuel Gonzales the amount of P158. Gatchalian and who furthermore had no reason to know check was given to plaintiff. Exh. or on 9 September 1953. but which facts were not known to plaintiff. Tenth. Exh. Gatchalian under the representations and conditions herein above specified. both or either of them. — That on the failure of Manuel Gonzales to appear the day following and on his failure to bring the car and its certificate of registration and to return the check. with the Ocampo Clinic. expressly or impliedly.
(Defendantsappellants' brief. Negotiable Instruments Law). and because under the circumstances stated in the stipulation of facts there were circumstances that brought suspicion about Gonzales' possession and negotiation. de Ocampo (Paragraph Sixth. The same inquiries should have been made by plaintiff. plaintiff should have been more cautious and wary in accepting a piece of paper and disbursing cold cash.25 (Par.) The check could not have been intended to pay the hospital fees which amounted only to P441. The maker is not in any manner obligated to Ocampo Clinic nor to Manuel Gonzales. the maker and the payee being original parties. (pp. (Par. Hence. delivery was conditional and the condition was not fulfilled. Stipulation of Facts). Stipulation of Facts. under the facts and circumstances stated in the stipulation of facts.). Stipulation of Facts). The maker Anita C. In their appeal defendants-appellants contend that the check is not a negotiable instrument. Stipulation of Facts. It is also claimed that the plaintiff-appellee is not a holder in due course because it acquired the check with notice of defect in the title of the holder. to inquire into the title of the holder. therefore. Furthermore. 52-53) . R. any person who holds it should have been subjected to inquiries. Plaintiff could have inquired why a person would use the check of another to pay his own debt. and in the case at bar. The check is in the amount of P600. In support of the first contention.simultaneously their memorandum to discuss the issues of law arising from the facts. plaintiff-appellee is the payee. Stipulation of Facts). 7. Stipulation of Facts). The circumstances are as follows: The check is not a personal check of Manuel Gonzales. (Par. In support of the contention that plaintiff-appellee is not a holder in due course. EVEN IN A BANK. Defendant's Record on Appeal). The check is payable to bearer. which is in excess of the amount due plaintiff. de Ocampo (Paragraph Sixth. Gatchalian is a complete stranger to Manuel Gonzales and Dr. within ten days from receipt of their main memoranda. 21-25. It was necessary for plaintiff to give Manuel Gonzales change in the sum P158. V. 10. (Paragraph Ninth. and that plaintiff is not a holder in due course.00. that a holder in due course presupposes a prior party from whose hands negotiation proceeded. 10. R. reserving to either party the right to submit reply memorandum. which circumstances should have placed the plaintiff-appellee under the duty. the appellant argues that plaintiff-appellee cannot be a holder in due course because there was no negotiation prior to plaintiff-appellee's acquiring the possession of the check. Since Manuel Gonzales is the party obliged to pay. CHECKS ARE NOT CASHED WITHOUT INQUIRY FROM THE BEARER. pp. that assuming for the sake of argument that delivery was not for safekeeping merely. if necessary. it is argued that defendant Gatchalian had no intention to transfer her property in the instrument as it was for safekeeping merely and. Manuel Gonzales. plaintiff had the "means of knowledge" inasmuch as defendant Hipolito Gatchalian is personally acquainted with V. there was no delivery required by law (Section 16. No other evidence was submitted and upon said stipulation the court rendered the judgment already alluded above.75.
52. 3. and was entrusted to Manuel Gonzales by Gatchalian. That he became the holder of it before it was overdue. As the check was payable to the plaintiff-appellee. I. The argument of Professor Brannan in an earlier edition of this work has never been successfully answered and is here repeated. negotiation took place through no fault of the plaintiff-appellee. as he was at common law. therefore." etc. p. depends upon whether or not the plaintiff-appellee is a holder in due course. if such was the fact. includes a payee who is in possession the word holder in the first clause of sec. 191. in other words. Section 191 defines "holder" as the payee or indorsee of a bill or note. Section 52. Our resolution of this issue leads us to a consideration of the last question presented by the appellants. That he took it in good faith and for value. 52 defendants defines a holder in due course as "a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: 1. 52 and in the second subsection may be replaced by the definition in sec. There can be no doubt that a proper interpretation of the act read as a whole leads to the conclusion that a payee may be a holder in due course under any circumstance in which he meets the requirements of Sec. 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. because the drawer did not deliver the instrument to Manuel Gonzales with the intention of negotiating the same. (Brannan's on Negotiable Instruments Law. for as the stipulation of facts declares the check was to remain in the possession Manuel Gonzales. it is immaterial that it was the payee and an immediate party to the instrument. Negotiable Instruments Law. whether the plaintiff-appellee may be considered as a holder in due course. thus: . The first argument of the defendants-appellants. defines holder in due course. citing Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law. but was to serve merely as evidence of good faith of defendants in their desire to purchase the car being sold to them. 6th ed. or the bearer thereof. plaintiff-appellee may be considered as a holder in due course. and without notice that it had been previously dishonored. when the agent of drawer Manuel Gonzales negotiated the check with the intention of getting its value from plaintiff-appellee. 2. Sec. unless it can be shown that the plaintiff-appellee should be considered as having notice of the defect in the possession of the holder Manuel Gonzales.. or for the purpose of giving effect thereto. Admitting that such was the intention of the drawer of the check when she delivered it to Manuel Gonzales. is a question upon which the courts are in serious conflict.e. On this issue Brannan holds that a payee may be a holder in due course and says that to this effect is the greater weight of authority. and was not to be negotiated. 191 so as to read "a holder in due course is a payee or indorsee who is in possession. it was no fault of the plaintiff-appellee drawee if Manuel Gonzales delivered the check or negotiated it. 4. counsel for plaintiff-appellee argues that in accordance with the best authority on the Negotiable Instruments Law. as defined in sec.Answering the first contention of appellant. thus: Whether the payee may be a holder in due course under the N. 6th edition. i. Manuel Gonzales was the agent of the drawer Anita Gatchalian insofar as the possession of the check is concerned. If it is such a holder in due course.. The other contention of the plaintiff is that there has been no negotiation of the instrument. page 252. the delivery to Manuel Gonzales was a delivery by the drawer to his own agent." Since "holder". That it is complete and regular on its face. 543).. So. L. who is in possession of it.
although he did not have notice of the particular wrong that was committed. it being sufficient to show that the defendant had notice that there was something wrong about his assignor's acquisition of title. 830. To such effect is the consensus of authority." Although gross negligence does not of itself constitute bad faith. Perry. immature in appearance and bearing on his face the stamp a degenerate. since all that is required is knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the note amounted bad faith. The manner in which the defendants conducted their Liberty Loan department provided an easy way for thieves to dispose of their plunder. v. Accord. Rep. Muir. 229 Pac. we must declare that plaintiff-appellee was guilty of gross neglect in not finding out the nature of the title and possession of Manuel Gonzales. 111 Misc. The stipulation of facts expressly states that plaintiff-appellee was not aware of the circumstances under which the check was delivered to Manuel Gonzales. (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue.W.Y. Davis v. 563. (c) That he took it in good faith and for value. it is evidence from which bad faith may be inferred.). The defendants paid the boy for the bonds without any further inquiry. R. and it may not be considered as a holder of the check in good faith. that the amount of the check did not correspond exactly with the obligation of Matilde Gonzales to Dr. Morris v. and without notice that it had been previously dishonored.E. The circumstances thrust the duty upon the defendants to make further inquiries and they had no right to shut their eyes deliberately to obvious facts. Paika v. 196 S. a boy fifteen years old. It is sufficient that the buyer of a note had notice or knowledge that the note was in some way tainted with fraud. de Ocampo. It was a case of "no questions asked. Liberty bonds stolen from the plaintiff were brought by the thief. to the defendants' clerk for sale. amounting to legal absence of good faith. Held. Bank. which practice means that the check could only be deposited but may not be converted into cash — all these circumstances should have put the plaintiff-appellee to inquiry as to the why and wherefore of the possession of the check by Manuel Gonzales. First Nat. if such was the fact. and that the check had two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner. 395. (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. Horton (Mo. V. Having failed in this respect. 181 N. 26 Ariz. It was payee's duty to ascertain from the holder Manuel Gonzales what the nature of the latter's title to the check was or the nature of his possession. 621. The boy stated that they belonged to his mother. and why he used it to pay Matilde's account. Ozark Motor Co. such as the fact that appellants had no obligation or liability to the Ocampo Clinic. Supp. In order to show that the defendant had "knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith. App. The term 'bad faith' does not necessarily involve furtive motives. . but means bad faith in a commercial sense. 114 N. less than five feet tall. 391.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. but we agree with the defendantsappellants that the circumstances indicated by them in their briefs. the plaintiff could recover the value of the bonds." it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the exact fraud that was practiced upon the plaintiff by the defendant's assignor. 739. 225 Mass. It is not necessary that he should know the particulars or even the nature of the fraud.
889. In the case at bar the rule that a possessor of the instrument is prima faciea holder in due course does not apply because there was a defect in the title of the holder (Manuel Gonzales). Harvey. 4 A. which has been adhered to in subsequent cases. and. therefore. Supp. L. Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law." and Section 52 (d). that in order that one may be a holder in due course it is necessary that "at the time the instrument was negotiated to him "he had no notice of any . Let us now examine the express provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law pertinent to the matter to find if our ruling conforms thereto. in memo.913. the fact is that it acquired possession of the instrument under circumstances that should have put it to inquiry as to the title of the holder who negotiated the check to it. 945. Later in Goodman v. and that even gross negligence would have no effect. & E. where the Supreme Court of Vermont made the following disquisition: Prior to the Negotiable Instruments Act.. it cannot be stated that the payee acquired the check without knowledge of said defect in holder's title. et al. It would seem that it was the intent of the Negotiable Instruments Act to harmonize this disagreement by adopting the . 3 B. As holder's title was defective or suspicious. 96 Vt. that no circumstances of suspicion merely. In other words.. Colvin. 6th ed. including those cited above. . if the circumstances were such as ought to have excited the suspicion of a prudent and careful man. & C. 870. And having presented no evidence that it acquired the check in good faith. 438. or want of proper caution in the purchaser. Stated briefly. 947. that the holder did not show or tell the payee why he had the check in his possession and why he was using it for the payment of his own personal account — show that holder's title was defective or suspicious. L. The rule was adopted by the courts of this country generally and seem to have become a fixed rule in the law of negotiable paper. The first had its origin in Gill v. while others followed the change inaugurated in Goodman v. placed upon it to show that notwithstanding the suspicious circumstances. and he made no inquiry. one line of cases including our own had adopted the test of the reasonably prudent man and the other that of actual good faith. instead of the presumption that payee was a holder in good faith. The rule applicable to the case at bar is that described in the case of Howard National Bank v. that every holder is deemed prima facieto be a holder in due course. The above considerations would seem sufficient to justify our ruling that plaintiff-appellee should not be allowed to recover the value of the check. to say the least. 894." Section 59. . On the other hand. because the instrument is not payable to him or to bearer. 125. 640-642. the stipulation of facts indicated by the appellants in their brief. 381. it acquired the check in actual good faith. the English court abandoned its former position and adopted the rule that nothing short of actual bad faith or fraud in the purchaser would deprive him of the character of a bona fide purchaser and let in defenses existing between prior parties. Section 52 (c) provides that a holder in due course is one who takes the instrument "in good faith and for value. a rule was adopted in harmony with that announced in Gill v. Cubitt. Wilson. where the rule was distinctly laid down by the court of King's Bench that the purchaser of negotiable paper must exercise reasonable prudence and caution. Harvey. 215. and for this reason the presumption that it is a holder in due course or that it acquired the instrument in good faith does not exist. 466. would have this effect. The burden was. Cubitt. and that. C." and lastly Section 59. 32 Vt. like the fact that the drawer had no account with the payee. on full consideration of the question. defect in the title of the person negotiating it. The question was before this court in Roth v. 120 At." (pp. it (payee) cannot be considered as a holder in due course. under the circumstances of the case. 191 App. except as evidence tending to establish bad faith or fraud. two distinct lines of cases had developed in this country. "that every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course. 10 E.Y. affd. Some of the American courts adhered to the earlier rule. 181 N. Div.). he did not stand in the legal position of a bona fide holder. 31 E.
3113. will not of themselves prevent a recovery. Bengzon. L. he is required to establish the conditions entitling him to standing as such. Brannan on Neg. as it is hereby. concur. Reyes.B. or suspicious circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man on inquiry. Concepcion. Padilla. 187-201. C. J. concurs in the result.. Barrera. the decision appealed from should be. and the defendants are absolved from the complaint. The stipulation of facts contains no statement of such good faith. from which good or bad faith in the transaction may be inferred. Bautista Angelo. 3172.latter test.. the duty devolved upon it. where such a course is required in construing other uniform acts. To effectuate the general purpose of the act to make uniform the Negotiable Instruments Law of those states which should enact it. With costs against plaintiff-appellee. but are to be considered merely as evidence bearing on the question of bad faith. For the foregoing considerations.L.. See G. In the case at bar as the payee acquired the check under circumstances which should have put it to inquiry.J. plaintiff-appellee. It comes to this then: When the case has taken such shape that the plaintiff is called upon to prove himself a holder in due course to be entitled to recover. hence we are forced to the conclusion that plaintiff payee has not proved that it acquired the check in good faith and may not be deemed a holder in due course thereof. Paredes. Law. . Ins. to prove that it actually acquired said check in good faith. Dizon and De Leon. we are constrained to hold (contrary to the rule adopted in our former decisions) that negligence on the part of the plaintiff. why the holder had the check and used it to pay his own personal account. reversed. JJ. including good faith in taking the instrument. That such is the view generally accepted by the courts appears from a recent review of the cases concerning what constitutes notice of defect. It devolves upon him to disclose the facts and circumstances attending the transfer.

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