METROPOLITAN BANK V.

CA 194 SCRA 169 FACTS: Gomez opened an account with Golden Savings bank and deposited 38 treasury warrants. All these warrants were indorsed by the cashier of Golden Savings, and deposited it to the savings account in a Metrobank branch. They were sent later on for clearing by the branch office to the principal office of Metrobank, which forwarded them to the Bureau of Treasury for special clearing. On persistent inquiries on whether the warrants have been cleared, the branch manager allowed withdrawal of the warrants, only to find out later on that the treasury warrants have been dishonored. HELD: The treasury warrants were not negotiable instruments. Clearly, it is indicated that it was non-negotiable and of equal significance is the indication that they are payable from a particular fund, Fund 501. This indication as the source of payment to be made on the treasury warrant makes the promise to pay conditional and the warrants themselves non-negotiable. Metrobank then cannot contend that by indorsing the warrants in general, GS assumed that they were genuine and in all respects what they purport it to be, in accordance to Section 66 of the NIL. The simple reason is that the law isnt applicable to the nonnegotiable treasury warrants. The indorsement was made for the purpose of merely depositing them with Metrobank for clearing. It was in fact Metrobank which stamped on the back of the warrants: All prior indorsements and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed

REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK V. COURT OF APPEALS 216 SCRA 738

FACTS: Yamaguchi and Canlas are officers of the Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, which later changed its name to Pinch Manufacturing. They were authorized to apply for credit facilities with the petitioner bank. The two officers signed the promissory notes issued to secure the payment of the obligations. Later, the bank instituted an action for collection of money, impleading also the two officers. The trial court held the two officers personally liable also.

HELD: Canlass is solidarily liable on each of the promissory notes to which his signature appears. The promissory notes in question are negotiable instruments and thus, governed by the Negotiable Instruments Law. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names in the instrument are makers are liable as such. By signing the note, the maker promises to pay to the order of the payee or any holder the tenor of the obligation. Based on the above provisions of the law, there is no denying that Canlass is one of the co-makers of the promissory note.