Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Engr. Jose E. Cayanan vs. North Star International Travel, Inc., G.R. No. 172954 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Iyah Mipanga
    This case involves a dispute over bounced checks between an international travel agency and a recruitment agency. The recruitment agency owner issued checks to the travel agency to cover obligations, but the checks bounced. The travel agency sued, and the owner argued there was no consideration for the checks. However, the Supreme Court found that under the law, checks are presumed to be issued for valuable consideration unless proven otherwise. The owner did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption or prove the checks lacked consideration. Therefore, the Supreme Court held the owner was civilly liable to pay the travel agency for the value of the bounced checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Engr. Jose E. Cayanan vs. North Star International Travel, Inc., G.R. No. 172954 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Iyah Mipanga
    54 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over bounced checks between an international travel agency and a recruitment agency. The recruitment agency owner issued checks to the travel agency to cover obligations, but the checks bounced. The travel agency sued, and the owner argued there was no consideration for the checks. However, the Supreme Court found that under the law, checks are presumed to be issued for valuable consideration unless proven otherwise. The owner did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption or prove the checks lacked consideration. Therefore, the Supreme Court held the owner was civilly liable to pay the travel agency for the value of the bounced checks.

    Original Title

    CRISMAE.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over bounced checks between an international travel agency and a recruitment agency. The recruitment agency owner issued checks to the travel agency to cover obligations, but the checks bounced. The travel agency sued, and the owner argued there was no consideration for the checks. However, the Supreme Court found that under the law, checks are presumed to be issued for valuable consideration unless proven otherwise. The owner did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption or prove the checks lacked consideration. Therefore, the Supreme Court held the owner was civilly liable to pay the travel agency for the value of the bounced checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views2 pages

    Engr. Jose E. Cayanan vs. North Star International Travel, Inc., G.R. No. 172954 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Iyah Mipanga
    This case involves a dispute over bounced checks between an international travel agency and a recruitment agency. The recruitment agency owner issued checks to the travel agency to cover obligations, but the checks bounced. The travel agency sued, and the owner argued there was no consideration for the checks. However, the Supreme Court found that under the law, checks are presumed to be issued for valuable consideration unless proven otherwise. The owner did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption or prove the checks lacked consideration. Therefore, the Supreme Court held the owner was civilly liable to pay the travel agency for the value of the bounced checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ENGR. JOSE E.

    CAYANAN

    vs.

    NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, INC.,

    G.R. No. 172954

    FACTS:

     North Star is a corporation engaged in the travel agency business while petitioner is the
    owner/general manager of JEAC International Management and Contractor Services, a
    recruitment agency.
     On March 17, 1994, Virginia Balagtas, the General Manager of North Star, in accommodation
    and upon the instruction of its client, petitioner herein, sent the amount of US$60,000 to View
    Sea Ventures Ltd., in Nigeria from her personal account in Citibank Makati.
     On March 29, 1994, Virginia again sent US$40,000 to View Sea Ventures by telegraphic
    transfer,with US$15,000 coming from petitioner.
     Likewise, on various dates, North Star extended credit to petitioner for the airplane tickets of his
    clients, with the total amount of such indebtedness under the credit extensions eventually
    reaching P510,035.47.
     To cover payment of the foregoing obligations, petitioner issued five checks to North Star.
     When presented for payment, the checks in the amount of P1,500,000 and P35,000 were
    dishonored for insufficiency of funds while the other three checks were dishonored because of a
    stop payment order from petitioner.
     North Star demanded payment, but petitioner failed to settle his obligations. Hence, North Star
    instituted Criminal case charging petitioner with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, or the
    Bouncing Checks Law.
     After trial, the MeTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of B.P. 22.
     On appeal, the RTC acquitted petitioner of the criminal charges. The RTC also held that there is
    no basis for the imposition of the civil liability on petitioner.
     CA reversed the decision of the RTC insofar as the civil aspect is concerned and held petitioner
    civilly liable for the value of the subject checks.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the CA erred in holding him civilly liable to North Star for the value of the checks.

    RULING:

    Petitioner argues that the CA erred in holding him civilly liable to North Star for the value of the checks
    since North Star did not give any valuable consideration for the checks. Respondent North Star, for its
    part, counters that petitioner is liable for the value of the five subject checks as they were issued for value.

    Supreme Court held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is
    presumed that the same was issued for valuable consideration which may consist either in some right,
    interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment,
    loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side.
    Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, it is presumed that every party to an instrument acquires the
    same for a consideration or for value. As petitioner alleged that there was no consideration for the
    issuance of the subject checks, it devolved upon him to present convincing evidence to overthrow the
    presumption and prove that the checks were in fact issued without valuable consideration. Sadly,
    however, petitioner has not presented any credible evidence to rebut the presumption, as well as North
    Stars assertion, that the checks were issued as payment for the US$85,000 petitioner owed.

    It is to be noted that the checks subject matter of the instant case were issued in the name of North Star
    International Inc., represented by private complainant Virginia Balagtas in replacement of the amount of
    dollars remitted by the latter to Vie[w] Sea Ventures in Nigeria. x x x But Virginia Balagtas has no
    business transaction with Vie[w] Sea Ventures where accused has been sending his contract workers and
    the North Star provided the trip tickets for said workers sent by the accused. North Star International has
    no participation at all in the transaction between accused and the Vie[w] Sea Ventures except in providing
    plane ticket used by the contract workers of the accused upon its understanding with the latter. The
    contention of the accused that the dollars were sent by Virginia Balagtas to Nigeria as business
    investment has not been shown by any proof to set aside the foregoing negative presumptions, thus
    negates accused contentions regarding the absence of consideration for the issuance of checks.

    You might also like