3.

Equitable PCI Bank vs. Tan

628 SCRA 52 G.R. No. 165339 (Aug. 23, 2010)
Digested by: ANM Cabreros

#10
Facts:

Respondent Arcelito B. Tan maintained a current and savings acccount with Philippine Commercial International Bank
(PCIB), now petitioner EQUITABLE PCI BANK. Tan issued checks postdated May 30, 1992 in favor of Sulpicio Lines. The latter
deposited said check to its own account. After clearing, the amount of the check was immediately debited by PCIB from Tan's
account thereby leaving him with a balance of only P558.87. Meanwhile, Tan issued another three checks dated May 9, 1992
and May 16, 1992 to electric cooperatives ASECO and ANECO payable in cash for P10,000.00. The issue started when, those
three checks were dishonored by PCIB for being drawn against insufficient funds. As a result of the dishonor of checks, the
electric power supply to Tan's businesses were cut off causing him moral and exemplary damages. So he filed a complaint
against PCIB praying payment for his losses. In its defense, petitioner denied that the check was postdated May 30, 1992. Upon
CA review it was found out that the date was written as 5/3/0/92.

ISSUE:
WON date of PCIB check no. 275100 is May 3, 1992 as contended by respondents.

HELD:
There was negligence on the part of PCIB. The court found that the check was indeed postdated May 30, 1992 and
not May 3, 1992 as urged by appellee.
The first bar (/) which separates the numbers "5" and "30" and the second bar (/) which further separates
the number "30" from the year 1992 appear to have been done in heavy, well-defined and bold strokes, clearly indicating the
date of the check as "5/30/1992" which obviously means May 30, 1992. On the other hand, the alleged bar (/) which appellee
points out as allegedly separating the numbers "3" and "0," thereby leading it to read the date as May 3, 1992, is not actually a
bar or a slant but appears to be more of an unintentional marking or line done with a very light stroke. The presence of the
figure "0" after the number "3" is quite significant. In fact, a close examination thereof would unerringly show that the said
number zero or "0" is connected to the preceeding number "3." In other words, the drawer of the check wrote the figures "30"
in one continuous stroke, thereby contradicting appellee’s theory that the number "3" is separated from the figure "0" by a bar.
Besides, appellee’s theory that the date of the check is May 3, 1992 is clearly untenable considering the presence of the figure
"0" after "3" and another bar before the year 1992. And if we were to accept appellee’s theory that what we find to be an
unintentional mark or line between the figures "3" and "0" is a bar separating the two numbers, the date of the check would
then appear as "5/3/0/1992, which is simply absurd.

Therefore, petitioner indeed, prematurely debited the amount of the check from Tan's account before its due date. PCIB
is civilly liable in this case.

4. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. BARTOLOME PUZON, JR., Respondent.

Delivery in relation to sec 16 - Delivery when effectual, when presumed

Facts: Bartolome V. Puzon, Jr., was a dealer of beer products of petitioner San Miguel Corporation
(SMC). Puzon purchased SMC products on credit. To ensure payment and as a business practice, SMC
required him to issue postdated checks equivalent to the value of the products purchased on credit before
the same were released to him. Said checks were returned to Puzon when the transactions covered by
these checks were paid or settled in full.

On December 2000, Puzon purchased products on credit and issued two BPI checks. to cover the said
transaction. Check Nos. 27904 (for P309,500.00) and 27903 (forP11,510,827.00)

On January 23, 2001, Puzon, together with his accountant, visited the SMC Sales Office to reconcile his
account with SMC. During that visit Puzon allegedly requested to see BPI Check No. 17657. However,
when he got hold of BPI Check No. 27903 which was attached to a bond paper together with BPI Check
No. 17657 he allegedly immediately left the office with his accountant, bringing the checks with them.

SMC sent a letter to Puzon demanding the return of the said checks. Puzon ignored the demand hence
SMC filed a complaint against him for theft with the City Prosecutor’s Office of Parañaque City.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE DELIVERY OF THE CHECKS TO SMC VESTED THE LATTER
OWNERSHIP OVER THE CHECKS (so as to make Puzon liable for theft, an element of which consists
the taking of personal property belonging to another)

Held: No, the delivery of the checks did not make SMC the owner thereof. The check was not given as
payment, there being no intent to give effect to the instrument,then ownership of the check was not
transferred to SMC.

Sec 12 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides: Sec. 12. Antedated and postdated – The instrument
is not invalid for the reason only that it is antedated or postdated, provided this is not done for an illegal or
fraudulent purpose. The person to whom an instrument so dated is delivered acquires the title
thereto as of the date of delivery

Note however that delivery as the term is used in the aforementioned provision means that the
party delivering did so for the purpose of giving effect thereto. Otherwise, it cannot be said that
there has been delivery of the negotiable instrument. Once there is delivery, the person to whom
the instrument is delivered gets the title to the instrument completely and irrevocably.

Not really quoted in the case: SEC. 16. Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and
revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto xxxxxxx

The evidence of SMC failed to establish that the check was given in payment of the obligation of
Puzon. There was no provisional receipt or official receipt issued for the amount of the check. What was
issued was a receipt for the document, a "POSTDATED CHECK SLIP." The petitioner's demand letter
sent to respondent states "As per company policies on receivables, all issuances are to be covered by
post-dated checks. However, you have deviated from this policy by forcibly taking away the check you
have issued to us to cover the December issuance." Notably, the term "payment" was not used
instead the terms "covered" and "cover" were used. The affidavit of petitioner’s witness further
reveals that the term "cover" was not meant to be used interchangeably with "payment." In said affidavit
paragraph 8 clearly shows that partial payment is expected to be made by the return of beer empties, and
not by the deposit or encashment of the check.

When taken in conjunction with the counter-affidavit of Puzon – where he states that "As the [liquid beer]
contents are paid for, SMC return[s] to me the corresponding PDCs or request[s] me to replace them with
whatever was the unpaid balance." – it becomes clear that both parties did not intend for the check
to pay for the beer products. The evidence proves that the check was accepted, not as payment,
but in accordance with the long-standing policy of SMC to require its dealers to issue postdated
checks to cover its receivables. The check was only meant to cover the transaction and in the
meantime Puzon was to pay for the transaction by some other means other than the check. This
being so, title to the check did not transfer to SMC; it remained with Puzon. The second element of
the felony of theft was therefore not established. Petitioner was not able to show that Puzon took a check
that belonged to another