Case no.

5
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE RICARDO D.
GALANO (CFI OF MANILA), JAIME K. DEL ROSARIO (DEPUTY SHERIFF) & AMELIA
TAN
(G.R. No. L-49188, Jan. 30, 1990)

FACTS:
Amelia works under the name & style of Able Printing Press. Amelia sued petitioner for
damages and payment of 10% of her unrealized profit plus legal interest. When presented upon
appeal to the CA, the CA lessened the award ruled in favor of Amelia. Said judgment became
final and executory on May 31, 1977.

When the case was remanded to the trial court for execution on Sept. 2, 1977, Amelia filed for
the issuance of a writ of execution. Respondents judge & sheriff thus issued its order for
executing & referred for enforcement.

Four months later in February, Amelia motioned for the issuance of an alias writ of execution
since her awards were not yet satisfied. Petitioners contend however that they have fully
satisfied them, evincing the cash vouchers it issued as payment, signed and receipted by the
previous sheriff.

When the sheriff was ordered to produce the amounts paid, the same could not be fulfilled since
the sheriff disappeared/absconded. Thereafter, respondent judge cancelled Amelia’s
subsequent motions & issued an alias writ of execution against the petitioner, instating
respondent Jaime as sheriff.

Petitioner denied the order, contending that the debt had already been fully satisfied. Jaime, in
retaliation, served a notice of garnishment on the depository bank of the petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner’s cash vouchers satisfied their obligation.
HELD:
NO. The High Court held that a check, whether manager’s or ordinary, is not legal tender. An
offer of a check in payment of a debt may be refused by the creditor. Mere delivery of checks
does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished and
remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized.

Moreover, as a protective measure, the courts encourage the practice of payments by check is
provided with adequate controls to be instituted to prevent wrongful payment and illegal
withdrawal/disbursement of fund.

From the facts provided, it is indeed out of the ordinary that checks intended for a particular
payee are made out in the name of another, petitioner created a situation which permitted the
erring sheriff to personally encash the checks & misappropriate the proceeds, for the prejudice
resulted therefore, the petitioner himself must bear the fault.