Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Vaca Vs People (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Glorious El Domine
    Vaca and Nieto issued a check for P10,000 to GARDS that bounced due to insufficient funds. When GARDS demanded payment, Vaca issued a replacement check for P19,866.16 from a different bank. GARDS filed criminal charges against Vaca and Nieto. The court found them guilty, presuming they knew of the insufficient funds based on BP 22. The court also held that damage to the payee is not required - even if GARDS wasn't damaged, the integrity of the banking system was. However, instead of imprisonment, the court imposed a fine of double the bounced check amount to redeem the individuals' economic usefulness while upholding social order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vaca Vs People (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Glorious El Domine
    1K views1 page
    Vaca and Nieto issued a check for P10,000 to GARDS that bounced due to insufficient funds. When GARDS demanded payment, Vaca issued a replacement check for P19,866.16 from a different bank. GARDS filed criminal charges against Vaca and Nieto. The court found them guilty, presuming they knew of the insufficient funds based on BP 22. The court also held that damage to the payee is not required - even if GARDS wasn't damaged, the integrity of the banking system was. However, instead of imprisonment, the court imposed a fine of double the bounced check amount to redeem the individuals' economic usefulness while upholding social order.

    Original Description:

    Vaca vs People (Digest).docx

    Original Title

    Vaca vs People (Digest).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Vaca and Nieto issued a check for P10,000 to GARDS that bounced due to insufficient funds. When GARDS demanded payment, Vaca issued a replacement check for P19,866.16 from a different bank. GARDS filed criminal charges against Vaca and Nieto. The court found them guilty, presuming they knew of the insufficient funds based on BP 22. The court also held that damage to the payee is not required - even if GARDS wasn't damaged, the integrity of the banking system was. However, instead of imprisonment, the court imposed a fine of double the bounced check amount to redeem the individuals' economic usefulness while upholding social order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Vaca Vs People (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Glorious El Domine
    Vaca and Nieto issued a check for P10,000 to GARDS that bounced due to insufficient funds. When GARDS demanded payment, Vaca issued a replacement check for P19,866.16 from a different bank. GARDS filed criminal charges against Vaca and Nieto. The court found them guilty, presuming they knew of the insufficient funds based on BP 22. The court also held that damage to the payee is not required - even if GARDS wasn't damaged, the integrity of the banking system was. However, instead of imprisonment, the court imposed a fine of double the bounced check amount to redeem the individuals' economic usefulness while upholding social order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VACA VS.

    CA
    (GR 43596, 31 October 1936)
    Facts:
    Eduardo Vaca is the president and owner of Ervine International while Fernando Nieto, Vacas
    son-in-law, is the firms purchasing manager. They issued a check for P10,000 to the General
    Agency for Reconnaissance, Detection and Security (GARDS) and drawn against China Bank.
    When deposited with PCIBank, the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. GARDS
    sent a demand letter but the drawers failed to pay within the time given (7 days from
    notice). A few days later, however, Vaca issued a check to GARDS for P19,866.16, drawn
    against Associated Bank, replacing the dishonored check. GARDS did not return the
    dishonored check. Later on, GARDS Acting Operations Manager filed a criminal suit against
    Vaca and Nieto for violation of BP 22. The trial court sentenced each to 1 year imprisonment
    and to pay a fine of P10,000 and costs.
    Issue [1]:
    Whether the drawers had knowledge of insufficient funds in issuing the check.
    Held [1]: Section 2 of BP 22 provides a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds if
    the drawer fails to maintain sufficient funds within 90 days after the date of the check, or to
    make arrangement for payment in full by the drawee of such check within 5 days after
    receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. Herein, the second check
    supposedly replacing the dishonored check is actually the payment of two separate bills, and
    was issued 15 days after notice. Such replacement cannot negate the presumption that
    the drawers knew of the insufficiency of funds.
    Issue [2]: Whether the absence of damages incurred by the payee absolves the drawers
    from liability.
    Held [2]: The claim that the case was simply a result of a misunderstanding between
    GARDS and the drawers and that the security agency did not suffer any damage from the
    dishonor of the check is flimsy. Even if the payee suffered no damage as a result of the
    issuance of the bouncing check, the damage to the integrity of the banking system cannot
    be denied. Damage to the payee is not an element of the crime punished in BP 22.
    Note: In this case, the Court recognized the contribution of Filipino entrepreneurs to the
    national economy; and that to serve the ends of criminal justice, instead of the 1 year
    imprisonment, a fine of double the amount of the check involved was imposed as penalty.
    This was made to redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary deprivation of
    personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social
    order.

    Negotiable Instruments Law


    Case Digest
    Glorio Ortega Dumandan, Jr.

    You might also like