Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Asia Banking Corp v. Javier

    Uploaded by

    Ana Balce
    The document discusses a case where a bank sued an indorser of two checks that were not paid by the drawer's bank. The court found that the indorser's liability was not established because the bank did not provide proof that it notified the indorser when the checks were dishonored, as required by law.

    Copyright:

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

    Asia Banking Corp v. Javier

    Uploaded by

    Ana Balce
    48 views3 pages
    The document discusses a case where a bank sued an indorser of two checks that were not paid by the drawer's bank. The court found that the indorser's liability was not established because the bank did not provide proof that it notified the indorser when the checks were dishonored, as required by law.

    Original Description:

    Enforcement of Liability

    Original Title

    5. Asia Banking Corp v. Javier

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a bank sued an indorser of two checks that were not paid by the drawer's bank. The court found that the indorser's liability was not established because the bank did not provide proof that it notified the indorser when the checks were dishonored, as required by law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    48 views3 pages

    Asia Banking Corp v. Javier

    Uploaded by

    Ana Balce
    The document discusses a case where a bank sued an indorser of two checks that were not paid by the drawer's bank. The court found that the indorser's liability was not established because the bank did not provide proof that it notified the indorser when the checks were dishonored, as required by law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    [No. 19051.

    April 4, 1923]

    ASIA BANKING CORPORATION, plaintiff and appellee, vs.


    JUAN JAVIER, limited copartnership, defendant and appellant.

    NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS; INDORSER; NOTICE OF


    NON-ACCEPTANCE OR NON-PAYMENT.—If, after a negotiable
    instrument is dishonored for non-acceptance or non-payment, the
    indorser is not notified of the fact in the time and manner prescribed by
    the law said indorser is released from all liability upon the documents.

    778

    778 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED


    Asia Banking Corporation vs. Javier

    APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.


    Imperial, J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Jose Varela Calderon for appellant.
    J. A. Wolfson for appellee.

    AVANCEÑA, J.:

    On May 10, 1920, Salvador B. Chaves drew a check on the


    Philippine National Bank for P11 ,.000 in favor of La Insular, a
    concern doing business in this city. 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. The deposit was made on July 14, 1920.
    On June 25, 1920, Salvador B. Chaves drew another check for
    P18,785.30 on the Philippine National Bank, in favor of the
    aforesaid La Insular. This check was also indorsed by the limited
    partners of La Insular, and was likewise deposited by Salvador B.
    Chaves in his current account with the plaintiff, Asia Banking
    Corporation, on July 6, 1920.
    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 plaintiff now brings this action against the defendant, as
    indorser, for the payment of the value of both checks.
    The lower court sentenced the defendant to pay the plaintiff
    P11,000, upon the check of May 10, 1920, with interest thereon at 9
    per cent per annum f rom July 10, 1920, and P18,778.34 on the
    check of June 25, 1920, with interest thereon at 9 per cent per
    annum from August 5, 1920. From this judgment the defendant
    appealed.

    779

    VOL. 44, APRIL 4, 1923 779


    Asia Banking Corporation vs. Javier

    One of the contentions of the appellant in support of this appeal is,


    that at all events its liability as indorser of the checks in question
    was extinguished. We may say in connection with this assignment of
    error that the liability of the defendant never arose.
    Section 89 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031)
    provides that, when a negotiable instrument is dis-honored 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 def
    endant that the checks in question had been dishonored, and
    therefore it has not established its cause of action. '
    For the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed and
    the defendant is absolved from the complaint without special
    pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
    Araullo, C. J., Street, Malcolm, and Ostrand, JJ., concur.
    Mr. Justice Johns voted for reversal, but he was absent at the time
    of the promulgation of the decision and his signature therefore does
    not appear signed to the opinion of the court.
    (Sgd.) MANUEL ARAULLO     
    Chief Justice

    Romualdez, J., did not take part.


    Judgment reversed.

    780

    780 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED


    National Bank vs. Welch, Fairchild & Co.
    © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

    You might also like