Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, Petitioner, THE AUDITOR GENERAL, Respondent. G.R. No. L-1405 July 31, 1948

    Uploaded by

    Thalia Salvador
    The document summarizes three court cases: 1) Abubakar vs Auditor General - The Court ruled that the Auditor General correctly refused to authorize payment of a treasury warrant that was not issued in favor of a private individual as required by law. 2) Surigao Century Sawmill vs CA - The Court held that a bill of lading should prevail over a lease contract in determining venue as it is a subsequent covenant that reflects the parties' intent. 3) Far East Bank vs Querimit - The Court ruled that the bank failed to prove it had paid certificates of deposit to the lawful bearer, as it did not require surrender of the certificates when payment was allegedly made

    Copyright:

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

    BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, Petitioner, THE AUDITOR GENERAL, Respondent. G.R. No. L-1405 July 31, 1948

    Uploaded by

    Thalia Salvador
    61 views3 pages
    The document summarizes three court cases: 1) Abubakar vs Auditor General - The Court ruled that the Auditor General correctly refused to authorize payment of a treasury warrant that was not issued in favor of a private individual as required by law. 2) Surigao Century Sawmill vs CA - The Court held that a bill of lading should prevail over a lease contract in determining venue as it is a subsequent covenant that reflects the parties' intent. 3) Far East Bank vs Querimit - The Court ruled that the bank failed to prove it had paid certificates of deposit to the lawful bearer, as it did not require surrender of the certificates when payment was allegedly made

    Original Title

    cases

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes three court cases: 1) Abubakar vs Auditor General - The Court ruled that the Auditor General correctly refused to authorize payment of a treasury warrant that was not issued in favor of a private individual as required by law. 2) Surigao Century Sawmill vs CA - The Court held that a bill of lading should prevail over a lease contract in determining venue as it is a subsequent covenant that reflects the parties' intent. 3) Far East Bank vs Querimit - The Court ruled that the bank failed to prove it had paid certificates of deposit to the lawful bearer, as it did not require surrender of the certificates when payment was allegedly made

    Copyright:

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

    BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, Petitioner, THE AUDITOR GENERAL, Respondent. G.R. No. L-1405 July 31, 1948

    Uploaded by

    Thalia Salvador
    The document summarizes three court cases: 1) Abubakar vs Auditor General - The Court ruled that the Auditor General correctly refused to authorize payment of a treasury warrant that was not issued in favor of a private individual as required by law. 2) Surigao Century Sawmill vs CA - The Court held that a bill of lading should prevail over a lease contract in determining venue as it is a subsequent covenant that reflects the parties' intent. 3) Far East Bank vs Querimit - The Court ruled that the bank failed to prove it had paid certificates of deposit to the lawful bearer, as it did not require surrender of the certificates when payment was allegedly made

    Copyright:

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

    Abubakar vs Auditor general

    BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, petitioner,
    vs.
    THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent.

    G.R. No. L-1405             July 31, 1948

    Facts: The Auditor General refused to authorize the payment of treasury warrant no. A-2867376 for
    P1,000 which was issued in favor of Placido S. Urbanes but is now in the hands of petitioner Benjamin
    Abubakar. The Auditor General argued that first, the warrant does not come within the purview of RA
    No. 80 (Item F-IV-8); and second, the requirements of his office had not been complied with. Since, the
    Court deemed the first reason to be sufficiently valid, it no longer passed upon the second.

    Issue: whether or not the auditor general erred in refusing to permit payment out of a particular
    appropriation in item f-iv-8 of RA 80.

    Held: No.

    It was admitted that the warrant was originally made payable to placido s urbanes in his capacity as
    disbursing officer of the food administration for “additional cash advance for food production campaign
    in la union” Thus, it is apparent that the treasury warrant was issued in favor of a public officer or
    employee but held in possession by a private individual. The Auditor General was correct in refusing to
    authorize its redemption since RA 80 Item f-iv-8 provides for treasury warrants issued in favor of and
    held in possession by private individuals. Since this warrant was not issued in favor of a private
    individual, the rule cannot apply.

    Moreover, petitioner cannot argue that he is a holder in good faith and is entitled to the rights and
    privileges of a holder in due course, free from defenses because the treasury warrant in question is not
    within the scope of the negotiable instruments law. The document bears on its face the words “payable
    from appropriation for food administration” which is an order for payment out of a particular fund thus
    making it not unconditional and therefore, not a negotiable instrument.

    Surigao century sawmill vs CA

    SURIGAO CENTURY SAWMILL, CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT


    OF APPEALS and PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO.,
    INC., Respondents.

    G.R. No. 83889 February 9, 1993


    Standard Plywood Corporation leased a barge, LCT “Tantoy” from Surigao Century Sawmill Co., Inc.,
    manned by the latter’s crew for delivery of plywood from Butuan City to its consignee, A-1 Construction,
    Inc. in Surigao City. Such was covered by a Contract of Lease and a Bill of Lading. However, the shipment
    failed to reach the consignee which resulted in damages to Standard, amounting to P490,000.00. But
    since the cargo was insured by Standard with Phoenix Assurance Co., Inc. under a Certificate of
    Insurance, Phoenix settled its obligation in the aforesaid amount and as a legal consequence, was
    subrogated to the rights and interests of the shipper, Standard. Failing to satisfy its demand from
    Surigao, Phoenix filed a complained with the RTC of Manila.

    Issue: Whether or not the bill of lading should prevail over the lease contract for purposes of venue

    Held: yes, the bill of lading should prevail over the lease contract simply because the former is a
    subsequent covenant and shall, therefore, take precedence in determining the intent of the parties.

    In determining which document should prevail, the real intent of the parties and/or characteristics of
    the documents should be examined. A bill of lading serves three functions: (1) as receipt for goods; (2)
    as contract of carriage; (3) as documentary title to the goods. Thus, Phoenix’s reliance on the bill of
    lading to support its cause of action is well-taken.

    Furthermore, respondent has the choice of venue of where to file its complaint for a sum of money and
    damages against petitioner.

    Far east bank vs querimit

    FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST


    COMPANY, Petitioner, vs.  ESTRELLA O. QUERIMIT, respondent.

    G.R. No. 148582 : January 16, 2002


    Estrella O. Querimit opened a dollar savings account in FEBTC for which she was issued 4 Certificates of
    Deposit. The certificates were to mature in 60 days and were payable to bearer at 4.5% interest per
    annum. The certificates bore the word accrued meaning, if they were not presented for encashment or
    pre-terminated prior to maturity, the money deposited with accrued interest would be rolled over by
    the bank and annual interest would accumulate automatically. In 1989, respondent accompanies her
    husband to the US for medical treatment, using all her savings in another bank to pay for the trip and
    medical expenses. After the death of her husband, respondent returned to the Philippines and went to
    FEBTC to withdraw her deposit but she was told that her husband had withdrawn the money in deposit.
    FEBTC alleged that respondent’s late husband was given an accommodation to allow him to withdraw
    Estrella’s deposit, even presenting certified true copies of documents showing that payment has been
    made. Respondent, through counsel, sent a demand letter to petitioner for the update and payment of
    the certificates but petitioner refused to respond. Thus, respondent filed a complaint. The trial court
    rendered judgment in favor of Querimit. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals but to no avail.
    The CA contends that FEBTC failed to prove that the certificates of deposit had been paid out of its
    funds. Hence, this petition.

    Issue: whether or not the certificates of deposit have already been paid by petitioner
    Held: No. FEBTC failed to prove that it had already paid Estrella Querimit, the bearer and lawful holder
    of the subject certificates of deposit. Evidence showed that the certificates are still in the possession of
    respondent and have not been indorsed or delivered to FEBTC. As a rule, one who pleads payment has
    the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the
    burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove payment. The
    debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by
    payment.29cräläw

    In this case, the certificates of deposit were clearly marked payable to bearer, which means, to [t]he
    person in possession of an instrument, document of title or security payable to bearer or indorsed in
    blank.30 Petitioner should not have paid respondents husband or any third party without requiring the
    surrender of the certificates of deposit.virtualibräry

    You might also like