ANG TEK LIAN, petitioner v.
THE COURT OF Despite repeated efforts to notify Ang that the check
APPEALS, respondent.
September 25, 1950
G.R. No. L-2516 / Ponente: Bengzon, J.
87 Phil 383
Related Article: Sec. Tickler: Estafa,
8, 9, 184, NIL Insufficiency of funds
Doctrine (Payable to the order of cash): A check
payable to the order of cash is a bearer instrument.
Facts
Ang Tek Lian, knowing he had no funds therefor,
drew on 16 November 1946 (Saturday), the check
upon the China Banking Corporation (drawee bank)
for the sum of PhP4,000, payable to the order of
“cash.”
Ang went to Lee Huan Hong’s office in 1217 Herran,
Paco, Manila to deliver the check in exchange for
money. On 18 November 1946 (the next business
day), the check was presented by Lee to the drawee
bank for payment, but it was dishonored for
insufficiency of funds because the balance of the
deposit of Ang on both dates is PhP335 only.
Lower Court ruling
The Court of First Instance convicted Ang Tek Lian of
estafa.
CA ruling
The CA affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The CA believed the version of Lee who testified that
Ang went to his office on 16 November and asked him
to exchange the check which Ang brought with him –
alleging that he needed badly the sum of PhP4,000
represented by the check, but could not withdraw it
from the bank, it being already closed. Lee also said
that he relied upon Ang’s assurance that he had
sufficient funds in the bank and that they used to
borrow money from each other, even before the war.
Further, on the same date, Lee delivered to Ang the
sum of PhP4,000 in cash.
had been dishonored by the bank, he could not be
located anywhere, until he was summoned in the City
Fiscal's Office in view of the complaint for estafa filed
in connection therewith; and that Ang has not paid as
yet the amount of the check, or any part thereof.
Issue/s
Whether or not Ang is not guilty of estafa as the check
had been made payable to “cash” and had not been
endorsed by the same
Ruling
No. A check payable to the order of cash is a bearer
instrument.
It is argued by Ang that as the check had been made
payable to "cash" and had not been endorsed by him,
he is not guilty of the offense charged. It was further
argued that Lee accepted the check with full
knowledge that it would be dishonored upon
presentment.
The Court states that they are not aware of the
uniformity of such practice. Instances have
undoubtedly occurred wherein the Bank required the
indorsement of the drawer before honoring a check
payable to "cash." But cases there are too, where no
such requirement had been made. It depends upon
the circumstances of each transaction.
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law (sec. 9 [d], a
check drawn payable to the order of "cash" is a check
payable to bearer, and the bank may pay it to the
person presenting it for payment without the drawer's
indorsement.
Where a check is made payable to the order of 'cash',
the word cash 'does not purport to be the name of any
person', and hence the instrument is payable to
bearer. The drawee bank need not obtain any
indorsement of the check, but may pay it to the
person presenting it without any indorsement.
Disposition
Wherefore, there being no question as to the
correctness of the penalty imposed on the appellant,
the writ of certiorari is denied and the decision of the
Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed, with costs.