Course Syllabus in Negotiable Instruments Law (AY 2021-2022)
Course Syllabus in Negotiable Instruments Law (AY 2021-2022)
Course Syllabus in Negotiable Instruments Law (AY 2021-2022)
VISION
MISSION
The University of San Carlos is a Catholic institution of learning that embodies the principles of
academic discipline of San Carlos Borromeo and the missionary charism of the Society of the
Divine Word (SVD).
We aim to develop competent and socially responsible professionals and lifelong learners in an
environment that fosters excellence in the academic core processes of teaching-learning,
research, and community extension service.
Our mission is to provide timely, relevant, and transformative academic programs responsive to
the needs of the local, national, and global communities in a rapidly changing world.
At the end of the law program, the Carolinian law graduate is expected to be Witness to
the Word and to embody the following Graduate Attributes:
Upon completion of the Law program, Carolinian law graduates will demonstrate the
following:
PLLO 1: KNOWLEDGE
PLLO 2: ETHICS, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WITNESS TO THE WORD
PLLO 3: THINKING SKILLS which include the skills to identify and articulate legal issues; apply
legal reasoning and research to generate appropriate responses to legal issues; engage in
critical analysis and make a reasoned choice amongst alternatives; and think creatively in
approaching legal issues and generating appropriate responses.
PLLO 4: RESEARCH SKILLS
PLLO 5: COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION
PLLO 6: SELF-MANAGEMENT
Upon completion of the course NIL, the students should be able to:
CLLO 1: Determine and explain what constitutes a negotiable instrument; assess any defects
in a negotiable instrument and propose the concomitant rights and obligations of the
parties thereto; and relate the usage of negotiable instrument to the relevant business
trades and transactions.
CLLO 2: Recognize and reflect upon the ethical issues that may arise involving the use and
dealings of negotiable instruments and exercise of the remedies available to relevant
parties in relation to the same; recognize and reflect upon the professional duties of lawyers
in promoting justice, human rights, due process and fairness in the community; use their
knowledge in the course to be Witness to the Word.
CLLO 3: Examine the facts of a given case, find the relevant facts and the key issues, identify
and apply the legal rules and principles involved, and generate appropriate responses.
CLLO 4: Communicate effectively and persuasively the key principles and concepts
involving the negotiable instruments law including the remedies available to pertinent
parties; demonstrate the ability to use appropriate means and form of communication
depending on the educational background and needs of legal or non-legal audiences;
render appropriate opinion after demonstrating the use of active listening skills such as
questioning, summarizing and paraphrasing.
E. COURSE STRUCTURE
F. COURSE REQUIREMENTS
1. Regular attendance;
1
Based in part on ALTC’s Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Program,
December 2010.
3
The course materials are all academic property of the course professor. A student may not
record any part of the class by any means, and in exceptional cases that the student receives
written faculty authorization to record a class, the student may not copy or download such
recording to a computer or any device for distribution. All course materials are for the student’s
personal education and study. Unauthorized use of the course materials shall be treated as
violation of the University policy on honesty as well as infringement of copyright laws.
I. INTRODUCTION
CASES:
1. Philippines Education Co. vs. Soriano, G.R. No. L-22405, 30 June 1971
4
2. Caltex Phil. vs. CA, G.R. No. 97753, August 10, 1992
3. Metrobank vs. CA, G.R. No. 88866, February 18, 1991
4. Sesbreno vs. CA, G.R. No. 89252, Marcy 24, 1993
5. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. vs. CA, GR No. 113236, March 5, 2001
6. Serano vs. CA, G.R. No. 45125, April 22, 1991
7. PNB vs. Manila Oil Refining & By-Products Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-18103,
8 June 1922
8. Republic Bank vs. Ebrada, G.R. No. L-40796, July 31, 1975
9. MWSS vs. CA, 143 SCRA 20, G.R. No. 126000, Oct. 7, 1998
10. Gempesaw vs. CA, G.R. No. 92244, February 9, 1993
11. Associated Bank vs. CA, G.R. No. 107382, January 31, 1996
12. Republic Bank vs. CA, G.R. No. 42725, April 22, 1991
13. Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. CA, GR No. 121413, January
29, 2001
14. Ramon Ilusorio vs. CA, GR No. 139130, November 27, 2002
15. Samsung Construction Co., Phils. vs. FEBTC and CA, GR No. 129015, August
13, 2004
16. Cesar V. Areza, et al. vs. Express Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 176697,
September 10, 2014
17. Far East Bank & Trust Company vs. Gold Palace Jewellery Co., G.R. No.
168274, August 20, 2008
18. Metrobank v. Cabilzo, G.R. No. 154469, December 6, 2006
19. International Corporate Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 129910. September 5, 2006
20. BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Engr. Selving Lao, GR. No. 227005, 19 June 2017
21. Metrobank v. Junnel’s Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 235511, June 20, 2018
III. CONSIDERATION
Cases:
IV. NEGOTIATION
CASES:
1. De Ocampo vs. Gatchalian 3 SCRA 596
2. Mesina vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 497
CASES:
1. Metropol vs. Sambok, 120 SCRA 864
2. Maralit vs. Imperial, 301 SCRA 605 (1999)
3. Sapiera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370 (1999)
4. BPI vs. CA and Napiza, 326 SCRA 641 (GR No. 11239, February 29, 2000)
A. Acceptance
a. How acceptance is made (Sections 132 and 133)
b. Kinds of acceptance (Sections 139, 140, and 141)
i. rights of parties as to qualified acceptance (Section 142)
ii. certification of check (Sections 187, 188, and 189)
c. Acceptance by separate instrument (Section 134)
d. Promise to accept (Section 135)
e. Time allowed to accept (Section 136)
f. Liability of drawee retaining or destroying bill (Section 137)
g. Acceptance of incomplete bill (Section 138)
D. Protest
a. How protest is made (Sections 153 and 160)
b. Who must protest (Section 154)
c. When must protest be made (Section 155)
d. Where protest is made (Section 156)
e. Protest for both non-acceptance and non-payment (Section 157)
f. When protest may be dispensed with (Section 159 and 118)
X. BILLS IN SET
a. Elements
b. Evidence and Presumption
c. Duty of Drawee
CASES:
1. State Investment House, Inc. v. CA, 217 SCRA 32 (1993)
2. Papa v. A.U. Valencia & Co., Inc., 284 SCRA 648 (1998)
3. Tan v. People, 500 SCRA 172 (2006)
4. Vaca v. CA, 298 SCRA 658 (1998)
5. Macalaglag v. People, 511 SCRA 400 (2006)
6. Cruz v. Cruz, 515 SCRA 89 (2007)
7. Del Rosario vs. Cedillo, 441 SCRA 70 (2004)
8. Resterio v. People, 681 SCRA 592 (2012)
8
I. Grade Distribution:
B. Essay-Type Exam