State Investment House v. IAC, G.R. No. 72764
July 13, 1989, C.J. Fernan
Chan Wan v. Tan Kim & Chen So, G.R. No. L-15380
September 30, 1960, J. Bengzon
Facts:
New Sikatuna Wood Industries, Inc. requested for a loan from private respondent Harris Chua. The latter
agreed to grant the same subject on the condition that the former should wait until December 1980 when
he would have the money. In view of this agreement, private respondent-wife Anita Pena Chua issued
three (3) crossed checks payable to New Sikatuna Wood Industries, Inc.
Facts:
Tan Kim drew eleven checks payable to “cash or bearer” upon the Equitable Banking Corporation. Chan
Wan presented the checks for payment to the drawee bank, but they "were all dishonored and returned
to him unpaid due to insufficient funds and/or causes attributable to the drawer."
Afterwards, New Sikatuna Wood Industries, Inc. entered into an agreement with herein petitioner State
Investment House, Inc. whereby for and in consideration of the sum under a deed of sale, the former
assigned and discounted with petitioner eleven (11) postdated checks including the aforementioned three
(3) postdated checks issued by herein private respondent-wife Anita Peña Chua to New Sikatuna Wood
Industries, Inc.
Later on, it was revealed that the three (3) crossed checks were deposited by petitioner, these checks
were dishonored because they were “insufficient funds”, “stop payment” and “account closed”,
respectively. Petitioner demanded from private respondent Anita Peña to make good said checks but the
latter failed to pay thus, the former filed a case for collection against the latter and her husband Harris
Chua.
Private respondents-defendants filed a third-party complaint against New Sikatuna Wood
Industries, Inc. for reimbursement and indemnification in the event that they be held liable to petitionerplaintiff. For failure of a third-party defendant to answer the third-party complaint despite due service of
summons, the latter was declared in default. Judgment was hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff or
against the defendants but on appeal filed by the same; the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s
judgment.
Issue:
Whether the drawer is liable in the absence of due presentment,
Ruling:
No. The drawer is not liable in the absence of due presentment. The three subject checks in the case at
bar had been crossed generally and issued payable to New Sikatuna Wood Industries, Inc. which could
only mean that the drawer had intended the same for deposit only by the rightful person, i.e., the payee
named therein. Apparently, it was not the payee who presented the same for payment and therefore,
there was no proper presentment, and the liability did not attach to the drawer. Consequently, no right of
recourse is available to petitioner against the drawer of the subject checks, private respondent wife,
considering that petitioner is not the proper party authorized to make presentation of the checks in
question.
Tan Kim declared without contradiction that the checks had been issued to two persons named Pinong
and Muy for some shoes the former had promised to make and "were intended as mere receipts". The
court declined to order payment for two principal reasons: (a) plaintiff failed to prove he was a holder in
due course, and (b) the checks being crossed should not have been deposited instead with the bank
mentioned in the crossing. The court dismissed the case for failure of proof, and from such dismissal they
did not appeal.
Issue:
Whether there was proper presentment and liability attached to the drawer.
Ruling:
No. There was no proper presentment, and the liability did not attach to the drawer. Eight of the checks
here in question bear across their face two parallel transverse lines between which these words are
written: non-negotiable — China Banking Corporation. These checks have, therefore, been crossed
specially to the China Banking Corporation, and should have been presented for payment by China
Banking, and not by Chan Wan. Inasmuch as Chan Wan did present them for payment himself — the
Manila court said — there was no proper presentment, and the liability did not attach to the drawer.
We agree to the legal premises and conclusion. It must be remembered, at this point, that the drawer in
drawing the check engaged that "on due presentment, the check would be paid, and that if it be
dishonored . . . he will pay the amount thereof to the holder". Wherefore, in the absence of due
presentment, the drawer did not become liable.
Far Eastern Bank v. Gold Palace Jewelry Co, G.R. No. 168271
August 20, 2008, J. Nachura
Facts:
Samuel Tagoe, purchased from Gold Palace several jewelries. As payment, Tagoe offered a foreign draft
issued by the United Overseas Bank (UOB) (Malaysia), addressed to the Land Bank of the Philippines,
Manila (LBP) and payable to respondent. Before receiving the draft, respondent inquired petitioner Far
East Bank (FEBTC) about the draft’s nature. The petitioner advised respondent not to release the pieces
of jewelry until the draft had been cleared. Respondent followed the advice. Consequently, Gold Palace
deposited the draft in the company’s account with the petitioner FEBTC. With these, FEBTC, as a
collecting bank, presented the draft to drawee bank LBP. Gold Palace's account with Far East was
credited with the amount stated in the draft
amount in the check implies not only his assent to the order of the drawer and a recognition of his
corresponding obligation to pay the aforementioned sum, but also, his clear compliance with that
obligation. Actual payment by the drawee is greater than his acceptance, which is merely a promise in
writing to pay. The payment of a check includes its acceptance.
The drawee bank cleared and paid the subject foreign draft and forwarded the amount thereof to the
collecting bank. The latter then credited to Gold Palace's account the payment it received. Following the
plain language of the law, the drawee, by the said payment, recognized and complied with its obligation
to pay in accordance with the tenor of his acceptance. The tenor of the acceptance is determined by the
terms of the bill as it is when the drawee accepts. Stated simply, LBP was liable on its payment of the
check according to the tenor of the check at the time of payment, which was the raised amount.
The foreigner then returned to Gold Palace to claim the purchased goods. Respondent released the
purchased goods and even issued, as change, an FEBTC Check because the amount in the draft was
more than the value of the goods. Tagoe encashed the said check and petitioner bank paid the same.
Afterwards, LBP informed petitioner FEBTC that the amount in the draft had been materially altered from
300.00 to 380,000.00 and that LBP will be returning it. Intending to debit the amount from respondent's
account, Far East subsequently refunded the amount earlier paid by LBP.
In the meantime, Gold Palace had already used portions of the amount. FETBC was able to debit a portion
of the amount from Gold Palace’s account, without prior written notice to the account holder. Thereafter,
petitioner FEBTC demanded from respondent Gold Palace the remaining balance. The latter did not
comply hence, the prior then instituted a case for sum of money and damages against Gold Palace.
The RTC rendered its decision in favor of FEBTC, ordering Gold Palace on the basis of its warranties as
a general indorser. However, on appeal, the CA reversed the RTC ruling and awarded respondents’
counterclaim wherein FEBTC failed to undergo the proceedings on the protest of the foreign draft or to
notify Gold Palace of the draft's dishonor; thus, FEBTC could not charge Gold Palace on its secondary
liability as an indorser. The CA further ruled that the remedy should be against the party responsible for
the alteration.
Issue:
Whether Far East could charge Gold Palace on its secondary liability as an indorser.
Ruling:
No. Far East could not charge Gold Palace on its secondary liability as an indorser. Far East failed to
undergo the proceedings on the protest of the foreign draft or to notify Gold Palace of the draft's dishonor.
The drawee bank had cleared the check, and its remedy should be against the party responsible for the
alteration. Considering that, in this case, Gold Palace neither altered the draft nor knew of the alteration,
it could not be held liable.
The Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), explicitly provides that the acceptor, by accepting the instrument,
engages that he will pay it according to the tenor of his acceptance. This provision applies with equal
force in case the drawee pays a bill without having previously accepted it. His actual payment of the
Associated Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 107382
January 31, 1996, J. Romero
Facts:
The Province of Tarlac maintains a current account with PNB where the provincial funds are
deposited. A portion of the funds of the province is allocated to the Concepcion Emergency Hospital.
During a post-audit done by the province, It was then discovered that the hospital did not receive several
allotment checks drawn by the Province. Upon further investigation, it was found out that the 30 checks
were encashed by Fausto Pangilinan, a former cashier and administrative officer of the hospital. He
collected the questioned checks from the office of the Provincial Treasurer until his retirement and
encashed all thirty (30) checks with petitioner bank by forging the chief of the payee hospital.
The Provincial Treasurer demanded from PNB the restoration of the various amounts debited
from the Province of Tarlac current account. In turn, PNB demanded reimbursement from petitioner bank.
Both banks resisted payment, the Province of Tarlac brought suit against PNB, which in turn, impleaded
Assoc. Bank as third party defendant. Associated Bank then filed a fourth party complaint against the
chief of the payee hospital and Fausto Pangilinan.
The lower court ruled in favor of the Province of Tarlac. On the third party complaint, it ruled in
favor of PNB. On the fourth party complaint, it dismissed the case. Both banks appealed to CA and CA
affirmed with the lower court’s decision.
Issue:
Whether Associated Bank is liable and should bear the loss of the forged endorsement.
Ruling:
Yes. Associated Bank is liable and should bear the loss of the forged endorsement. The checks were
indorsed by the collecting bank (Associated Bank) to the drawee bank (PNB). The former will necessarily
be liable to the latter for the checks bearing forged indorsements. If the forgery is that of the payee's or
holder's indorsement, the collecting bank is held liable, without prejudice to the latter proceeding against
the forger. Since a forged indorsement is inoperative, the collecting bank had no right to be paid by the
drawee bank. The former must necessarily return the money paid by the latter because it was paid
wrongfully.
In section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a collecting bank which indorses a check bearing a
forged indorsement and presents it to the drawee bank guarantees all prior indorsements, including the
forged indorsement. It warrants that the instrument is genuine, and that it is valid and subsisting at the
time of his indorsement. Because the indorsement is a forgery, the collecting bank commits a breach of
this warranty and will be accountable to the drawee bank. This liability scheme operates without regard
to fault on the part of the collecting/presenting bank. Even if the latter bank was not negligent, it would
still be liable to the drawee bank because of its indorsement.
Banco de Oro v. Equitable Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 74917, 1988
January 20, 1988, J. Gancayco
Facts:
Equitable Bank drew six crossed manager’s checks payable to certain member establishments of Visa
Card. Subsequently, the checks were deposited with Banco De Oro (BDO) to the credit of its depositor.
Following normal procedures and after stamping at the back of the checks the usual
endorsements,BDOsent the checks for clearing through the Philippine Clearing House Corporation
(PCHC). Accordingly, Equitable Banking paid the checks; its clearing account was debited for the value
of the checks and BDO’s clearing account was credited for the same amount.
Later, Equitable Banking discovered that the endorsements appearing at the back of the checks and
purporting to be that of the payees were forged and/or unauthorized or otherwise belong to persons other
than the payees. Equitable Banking presented the checks directly to BDO for the purpose of claiming
reimbursement from the latter. However, BDO refused to accept such direct presentation and to reimburse
Equitable Banking for the value of the checks.
The Arbiter rendered a decision favoring Equitable Banking Corp and against BDO. In a motion for
reconsideration filed by the petitioner bank (BDO), the Board of Directors of PCHC affirmed with the
Arbiter’s decision. Thus, a petition for review was filed with the RTC; RTC affirmed with the PCHC’s
decision.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner bank was negligent and thus responsible for any undue payment.
Ruling:
Yes. The petitioner bank was negligent and responsible for any undue payment. Section 66 of the
Negotiable Instruments ordains that: Every indorser who indorses without qualification, warrants to all
subsequent holders in due course' (a) that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports
to be; (b) that he has good title to it; (c) that all prior parties have capacity to contract; and (d) that the
instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting.
Apropos the matter of forgery in endorsements, this Court has succinctly emphasized that the collecting
bank or last endorser generally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of
all prior endorsements considering that the act of presenting the check for payment to the drawee is an
assertion that the party making the presentment has done its duty to ascertain the genuineness of the
endorsements.
The petitioner having stamped its guarantee of "all prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsements" is
now estopped from claiming that the checks under consideration are not negotiable instruments. The
checks were accepted for deposit by the petitioner stamping thereon its guarantee, in order that it can
clear the said checks with the respondent bank. By such deliberate and positive attitude of the petitioner
it has for all legal intents and purposes treated the said cheeks as negotiable instruments and accordingly
assumed the warranty of the endorser when it stamped its guarantee of prior endorsements at the back
of the checks. It led the said respondent to believe that it was acting as endorser of the checks and on
the strength of this guarantee said respondent cleared the checks in question and credited the account
of the petitioner. Petitioner is now barred from taking an opposite posture by claiming that the disputed
checks are not negotiable instruments. And, although the subject checks are non-negotiable the
responsibility of petitioner as indorser thereof remains.
Far East Realty Investment Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-36549
October 5, 1988, J. Paras
Facts:
The private respondents, because of business needs, applied for an accommodation loan with petitioner
Far East Realty Investment Inc. They promised to pay jointly and severally, in one month's time and
delivered to petitioner a check dated September 13, 1960, drawn by Dy Hian Tat, and signed by them at
the back. They assured the petitioner that they would redeem the said check by paying in cash the said
amount after a month from September 13, 1960, or that the said check could be presented for payment
on or after a month from the date indicated on the check.
The accommodation loan was extended to the respondents, however, on March 5, 1964, when the check
was presented for payment to the China Banking Corporation, said check bounced because the current
account of the drawer had already been closed. Demand for payment failed so the petitioner filed an
action for the collection and payment representing the face value of the unpaid and dishonored check.
The City Court of Manila rendered its decision in favor of the petitioner then this was appealed by the
private respondents to the CFI-Manila. CFI-Manila affirmed the city court’s decision. Private respondents
appealed to CA. CA denied the petition, hence petitioner filed the instant petition.
Issue:
Whether the presentment for payment and notice of dishonor of the qcheck were made within
reasonable time?
Ruling:
No. Presentment for payment and notice of dishonor were not made within a reasonable time.
“Reasonable time” has been defined as so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a
reasonable prudent and diligent man to do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires should be
done, having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss, if any, to the other party.
Where the instrument is not payable on demand, presentment must be made on the day it falls due.
Where it is payable on demand, presentment must be made within a reasonable time after issue, except
that in the case of a bill of exchange, presentment for payment will be sufficient if made within a
reasonable time after the last negotiation thereof (Section 71, Negotiable Instruments Law). Notice may
be given as soon as the is dishonored; and unless delay is excused must be given within the time fixed
by the law (Section 102, Negotiable Instruments Law).
In this case, the check in question was issued on September 13, 1960, but was presented to the drawee
bank only on March 5, 1964, and dishonored on the same date. After dishonor by the drawee bank, a
formal notice of dishonor was made by the petitioner through a letter dated April 27, 1968. The petitioner
undoubtedly failed to exercise prudence and diligence on what he ought to do as required by law
Facts:
Respondent Benito Seeto called at the branch of the petitioner, Philippine National Bank, and presented
a check payable to cash or bearer, and drawn by one Gan Yek Kiao against the Cebu branch of the
Philippine Bank of Communications. After consultation with the employees of the branch, Seeto made a
general and unqualified indorsement of the check, and petitioner's agency accepted it and paid
respondent. The check was mailed to petitioner's Cebu branch, and was presented to the drawee bank
for payment, but the check was dishonored for "insufficient funds." So the check was returned to
petitioner's Surigao agency and upon receipt thereof by it, said branch immediately sent a letter to the
respondent herein demanding immediate refund of the value of the check. A second communication of
the same tenor was sent; to which respondent answered asking that plaintiff's contemplated suit be
deferred while he was making inquiries about the reasons for the dishonor of the check. Thereafter,
respondent refused to make the refund demanded, claiming that at the time of the negotiation of the check
the drawer had sufficient funds in the drawee bank, and that had the petitioner's Surigao agency not
delayed to forward the check until the drawer's funds were exhausted, the same would have been paid.
Issue:
Whether the delay in the presentment for payment discharged the respondent from liability.
Ruling:
Yes. The respondent is discharged of his obligation due to the bank’s delay in the presentment of the
check. Although the drawer of a check is discharged only to the extent of loss caused by unreasonable
delay in presentment, an indorser is wholly discharged thereby irrespective of any question of loss or
injury. That respondent was discharged upon the dishonor of the check is based on Sections 84 and 186,
the latter expressly requiring that a check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after
issue. The silence of Section 186 as to the indorser is due to the fact that his discharge is already
expressly covered by the provision of Section 84, the indorser being a person secondarily liable on the
instrument. The reason for the difference between the liability of the indorser and that of the drawer in
case of dishonor is that the drawer is not probably or necessarily prejudiced thereby, while an indorser is,
actually or by legal presumption.
The fact, admitted by the witnesses for the petitioner, that checks of the drawer issued subsequent to
March 13, 1948, drawn against the same bank and cashed at the same Surigao agency, were not
dishonored positively shows that the drawer had enough funds when he issued the check in question,
and that had it not been for the unreasonable delay in its presentation for payment, the petitioner herein
would have been able to receive payment therefor. There was unreasonable delay in the presentation of
the check for payment at the drawee bank, and that as a consequence thereof, the indorser, respondent
herein, was thereby discharged.
International Corporate Bank (UBP) v. Spouses Gueco, G.R. No. 141968
February 12, 2001, J. Kapunan
PNB v. Benito Seeto, G.R. No. L-4388
August 13, 1952, J. Labrador
Facts:
Spouses Francis S. Gueco and Ma. Luz E. Gueco obtained a car loan payable in monthly installments
and secured by a chattel mortgage over the car in favor of International Corporate Bank (now Union Bank
of the Philippines). Consequently, Spouses Gueco defaulted in payment of installments in the amount of
P184,000. Thus, the bank filed a civil action for Sum Of Money With Prayer For A Writ Of Replevin before
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). Meanwhile, Spouses Gueco and the bank had several negotiations
which led to the reduction of the unpaid balance to P150, 000.00. Thereafter, spouses Gueco delivered
a manager’s check in the said amount but the car was not released because the former refused to sign
the Joint Motion to Dismiss.
After several demand letters and meetings with bank representatives, spouses initiated a civil action for
damages before the MTC which dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) which reversed the MTC decision. The court upheld the spouses contention that the
bank should return the car or its value and that the latter, because of its own negligence in not opting to
deposit or use the check, should suffer the loss occasioned by the fact that the check had become stale.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari
under rule 45 of the Rules of Court was filed.
Issue:
Whether the delivery of manager’s check produced the effect of payment thereby discharging
respondent spouse’s original obligation to pay?
Ruling:
No. The delivery of manager’s check did not discharge respondent spouse’s original obligation to pay. In
the case at bar, the check involved is not an ordinary bill of exchange but a manager’s
check. A manager’s check is one drawn by the bank's manager upon the bank itself. It is similar to a
cashier’s check both as to effect and use. A cashier’s check is a check of the bank's cashier on his own
or another check. In effect, it is a bill of exchange drawn by the cashier of a bank upon the bank itself and
accepted in advance by the act of its issuance. It is really the bank's own check and may be treated as a
promissory note with the bank as a maker. The check becomes the primary obligation of the bank which
issues it and constitutes its written promise to pay upon demand.
The mere issuance of it is considered an acceptance thereof. If treated as a promissory note, the drawer
would be the maker and in which case the holder need not prove presentment for payment or present the
bill to the drawee for acceptance.
Metropol v. Sambok, G.R. No. L-39641
February 28, 1983, J. De Castro
Facts:
Dr. Javier Villaruel issued a promissory note in favor of Ng Sambok Sons Motors Co., Ltd payable in
twelve equal monthly installments with interest. Sambok Motors Company, under the same management
as Ng Sambok Sons Motors Co., Ltd., negotiated and indorsed the note in favor of Metropol Financing &
Investment Corporation. Dr. Villaruel defaulted in the payment of his installments and failed to pay when
plaintiff formally presented it for payment. Plaintiff notified Sambok as indorsee of the note that the same
note has been dishonored and demanded payment. Sambok failed to pay. During the pendency of the
case Dr. Villaruel died. Sambok argues that by adding the words "with recourse" in the indorsement of
the note, it becomes a qualified indorser, thus, it does not warrant that if said note was afis dishonored
by the maker failed to pay the said not on presentment, it will pay the amount to the holder.
Issue:
Whether Sambok Motors Co is a qualified indorser and is liable upon the failure of payment of the maker.
Ruling:
No. Sambok Motors Co is not a qualified indorser and is liable upon the failure of payment of the maker.
A qualified indorsement constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title to the instrument. It may be
made by adding to the indorser's signature the words "without recourse" or any words of similar meaning.
Such an indorsement relieves the indorser of the general obligation to pay if the instrument is dishonored
but not of the liability arising from warranties on the instrument as provided in Section 65 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law. However, appellant indorsed the note "with recourse" and even waived the notice of
demand, dishonor, protest and presentment.
Sambok Motors Co. Appellant, by indorsing the note "with recourse" does not make itself a qualified
indorser but a general indorser who is secondarily liable, because by such indorsement, it agreed that if
Dr. Villaruel fails to pay the note, plaintiff-appellee can go after said appellant. The effect of such
indorsement is that the note was indorsed without qualification. A person who indorses without
qualification engages that on due presentment, the note shall be accepted or paid, or both as the case
may be, and that if it be dishonored, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder. The words added by
said appellant do not limit his liability, but rather confirm his obligation as a general indorser.
Even assuming that a presentment is needed, failure to present for payment within a reasonable time will
result in the discharge of the drawer only to the extent of the loss caused by the delay. Failure to present
on time, thus, does not totally wipe out all liability. In fact, the legal situation amounts to an
acknowledgment of liability in the sum stated in the check.
In this case, the Gueco spouses have not alleged, much less shown that they or the bank which issued
the managers check has suffered damage or loss caused by the delay or non presentment. Definitely,
the original obligation to pay certainly has not been erased
Crystal v. CA G.R. No. L-35767
June 18, 1976, J. Barredo
Facts:
The Supreme Court affirmed its decision favoring the decision of Court of Appeals wherein the redemption
of the property by petitioner Crystal that is acquired by private respondents Ocang et al, was invalid
because petitioner Crystal’s check as payment for the redemption sale of property has been either
dishonored for lack of sufficient funds or had become stale.
Issue:
Whether the conflicting circumstances of the check being dishonored and becoming stale affect the
validity of the redemption sale?
Ruling:
Yes. For a check to the dishonored upon presentment on the one hand, and to be stale for not being
presented at all in time, on the other, are incompatible developments that naturally have variant legal
consequences. Thus, if the check in question had been dishonored, then there can be no doubt that
petitioner's redemption was null and void. On the other hand, if it had only become stale, then it becomes
imperative that the circumstances that caused its non-presentment be determined, for if this was not due
to the fault of the petitioner, then it would be unfair to deprive him of the rights he had acquired as
redemptioner, particularly, the value of the check has otherwise been received or realized by the party
concerned.
State Investment House v. IAC, G.R. No. 72764, 1989
July 13, 1989, C.J. Fernan
Facts:
New Sikatuna Wood Industries, Inc. requested for a loan from private respondent Harris Chua. The latter
agreed to grant the same subject to the condition that the former should wait until December 1980 when
he would have the money. In view of this agreement, private respondent-wife Anita Pena Chua issued
three (3) crossed checks payable to New Sikatuna Wood Industries, Inc.
Afterwards, New Sikatuna Wood Industries, Inc. entered into an agreement with herein petitioner State
Investment House, Inc. whereby for and in consideration of the sum under a deed of sale, the former
assigned and discounted with petitioner eleven (11) postdated checks including the aforementioned three
(3) postdated checks issued by herein private respondent-wife Anita Peña Chua to New Sikatuna Wood
Industries, Inc.
Later on, it was revealed that the three (3) crossed checks were deposited by petitioner, these checks
were dishonored because they were “insufficient funds”, “stop payment” and “account closed”,
respectively. Petitioner demanded from private respondent Anita Peña to make good said checks but the
latter failed to pay thus, the former filed a case for collection against the latter and her husband Harris
Chua.
Private respondents-defendants filed a third-party complaint against New Sikatuna Wood Industries, Inc.
for reimbursement and indemnification in the event that they be held liable to petitioner-plaintiff. For failure
of a third-party defendant to answer the third-party complaint despite due service of summons, the latter
was declared in default. Judgment was hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff or against the defendants
but on appeal filed by the same; the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s judgment.
Issue:
Whether the effect of crossing a check relates to the mode of its presentment for payment.
Ruling:
Yes. The effect of crossing a check relates to the mode of its presentment for payment. Under Section 72
of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a presentment for payment to be sufficient must be made (a) by the
holder, or by some person authorized to receive payment on his behalf ... As to who the holder or
authorized person will be depends on the instructions stated on the face of the check.
The three subject checks in the case at bar had been crossed generally and issued payable to New
Sikatuna Wood Industries, Inc. which could only mean that the drawer had intended the same for deposit
only by the rightful person, i.e., the payee named therein. Apparently, it was not the payee who presented
the same for payment and therefore, there was no proper presentment, and the liability did not attach to
the drawer.
Thus, in the absence of due presentment, the drawer did not become liable. Consequently, no right of
recourse is available to petitioner against the drawer of the subject checks, private respondent wife,
considering that petitioner is not the proper party authorized to make presentment of the checks in
question.