1. Miranda issued 6 postdated checks totaling P115,000 to Travel-On, a travel agency, to settle his outstanding debts. However, the checks bounced upon presentment. Miranda claimed the checks were accommodation checks to help the travel agency's general manager, while the agency claimed they were to settle Miranda's debts.
2. The Court ruled the checks were not accommodation checks under the Negotiable Instruments Law as Travel-On did not receive value from Miranda. As the maker of the checks, Miranda did not rebut the presumption that Travel-On was a holder in due course and is thus liable for the amount of the checks.
3. Maniego indorsed checks given to the disb
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
1. Miranda issued 6 postdated checks totaling P115,000 to Travel-On, a travel agency, to settle his outstanding debts. However, the checks bounced upon presentment. Miranda claimed the checks were accommodation checks to help the travel agency's general manager, while the agency claimed they were to settle Miranda's debts.
2. The Court ruled the checks were not accommodation checks under the Negotiable Instruments Law as Travel-On did not receive value from Miranda. As the maker of the checks, Miranda did not rebut the presumption that Travel-On was a holder in due course and is thus liable for the amount of the checks.
3. Maniego indorsed checks given to the disb
1. Miranda issued 6 postdated checks totaling P115,000 to Travel-On, a travel agency, to settle his outstanding debts. However, the checks bounced upon presentment. Miranda claimed the checks were accommodation checks to help the travel agency's general manager, while the agency claimed they were to settle Miranda's debts.
2. The Court ruled the checks were not accommodation checks under the Negotiable Instruments Law as Travel-On did not receive value from Miranda. As the maker of the checks, Miranda did not rebut the presumption that Travel-On was a holder in due course and is thus liable for the amount of the checks.
3. Maniego indorsed checks given to the disb
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
1. Miranda issued 6 postdated checks totaling P115,000 to Travel-On, a travel agency, to settle his outstanding debts. However, the checks bounced upon presentment. Miranda claimed the checks were accommodation checks to help the travel agency's general manager, while the agency claimed they were to settle Miranda's debts.
2. The Court ruled the checks were not accommodation checks under the Negotiable Instruments Law as Travel-On did not receive value from Miranda. As the maker of the checks, Miranda did not rebut the presumption that Travel-On was a holder in due course and is thus liable for the amount of the checks.
3. Maniego indorsed checks given to the disb
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
TRAVEL-ON vs.
COURT OF APPEALS • The trial court ruled that Miranda’s
G.R. No. L-56169 June 26, 1992 indebtedness to Travel-on was not satisfactorily established and that the Facts: postdated checks were issued not for the • Petitioner Travel-On is a travel agency purpose of encashment to pay his selling airline tickets on commission basis for indebtedness but to accommodate the General and in behalf of different airline companies. Manager of Travel-On to enable her to show to • While, private respondent Arturo S. the Board of Directors that Travel-On was Miranda had a revolving credit line with financially stable. petitioner. He procured tickets from petitioner • CA affirmed the RTCs ruling. on behalf of airline passengers and derived commissions therefrom. Issue: • On June, 1972, Petitioner Travel-on filed a 1. WON the checks issued by Miranda to suit against Miranda for the collection of the 6 Travel-on were accommodation checks. checks he issued to petitioner, with a total face NO. amount of P115K. 2. WON Miranda is liable to Travel-on for the • The complaint alleged that from August issuance of 6 checks. YES 1969 to January 1970, petitioner sold and delivered various airline tickets to respondent Ruling: at a total price of P278,201.57; that to settle 1. No accommodation transaction was shown said account, private respondent paid various in the case at bar. amounts in cash and in kind, and thereafter • In accommodation transactions recognized issued six (6) postdated checks amounting to by the NIL, an accommodating party lends his P115,000.00 which were all dishonored by the credit to the accommodated party, by issuing drawee banks. or indorsing a check which is held by a payee • Further, Travel-on alleged that in March or indorsee as a holder in due course, who 1972, private respondent made another gave full value therefor to the accommodated payment of P10,000.00 reducing his party. The latter, in other words, receives or indebtedness to P105,000.00. realizes full value which the accommodated • As his answer, Miranda admitted that he party then must repay to the accommodating had transactions with Travel-on but claimed party, unless of course the accommodating that he had already fully paid and even party intended to make a donation to the overpaid his obligations and that refunds were accommodated party. But the accommodating in fact due to him. party is bound on the check to the holder in • He also argued that he had issued the due course who is necessarily a third party and postdated checks for purposes of is not the accommodated party. Having issued accommodation, as he had in the past or indorsed the check, the accommodating accorded similar favors to petitioner. party has warranted to the holder in due course that he will pay the same according to • In support of his theory that the checks its tenor. were issued for accommodation, Miranda testified that he had issued the checks in the • In the case at bar, Travel-On was payee of name of Travel-On in order that its General all six (6) checks, it presented these checks for Manager, Montilla, could show to Travel-On's payment at the drawee bank but the checks Board of Directors that the accounts receivable bounced. Travel-On obviously was not an of the company were still good. He further accommodated party; it realized no value on stated that Montilla tried to encash the same, the checks which bounced. but that these were dishonored and were 2. SC holds Miranda liable for the 6 checks. subsequently returned to him after the • The checks involved in this case accommodation purpose had been attained. constituted as the evidence of indebtedness of • Montilla, on the other hand explained that Miranda to Travel-on. the "accommodation" extended to Travel-On • Travel-On id entitled to the benefit of the by private respondent related to situations statutory presumption that it was a holder in where one or more of its passengers needed due course, that the checks were supported by money in Hongkong, and upon request of valuable consideration. As maker of the Travel-On respondent would contact his friends checks, Miranda did not successfully rebut in Hongkong to advance Hongkong money to these presumptions. He only claimed that he the passenger. The passenger then paid had issued the checks to Travel-On as payee to Travel-On upon his return to Manila and which "accommodate" its General Manager. It will be payment would be credited by Travel-On to seen that this claim was in fact a claim that respondent's running account with it. the checks were merely simulated, that private respondent did not intend to bind himself thereon. Only evidence of the clearest and Issue: most convincing kind will suffice for that 1. WON Maniego is liable as an indorser of the purpose; no such evidence was submitted by checks. YES. Miranda. 2. WON Maniego may also be deemed as an • Upon the other hand, the "accommodation" accommodation party. YES. or assistance extended to Travel-On's passengers abroad as testified by the General Ruling: Manager involved, was not the accommodation 1. Under the law, the holder or last indorsee transactions recognized by the NIL, but rather of a negotiable instrument has the right to the circumvention of then existing foreign "enforce payment of the instrument for the full exchange regulations by passengers booked amount thereof against all parties liable by Travel-On, which incidentally involved thereon." receipt of full consideration by private • Among the "parties liable thereon" is an respondent. indorser of the instrument i.e., "a person • As the checks constitute the best evidence placing his signature upon an instrument of Miranda's liability to Travel-On, the amount otherwise than as maker, drawer, or acceptor of such liability is the face amount of the ** unless he clearly indicates by appropriate checks, reduced only by the P10,000.00 which words his intention to be bound in some other Travel-On admitted in its complaint. capacity. " • Such an indorser "who indorses without qualification," inter alia" engages that on due presentment, ** (the instrument) shall be PEOPLE vs. MANIEGO accepted or paid, or both, as the case may be, G.R. No. L-30910 February 27, 1987 according to its tenor, and that if it be dishonored, and the necessary proceedings on Facts: dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount • Accused-appellant Maniego, together with thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent Lt. Ubay and Pamintuan were charged with the indorser who may be compelled to pay it." crime of Malversation. 2. Maniego may also be deemed an • The Information alleged that Lt. Ubay, an "accommodation party" in the light of the officer in the AFP and who was also designated facts, i.e., a person "who has signed the as Disbursing Officer in the Office of the Chief instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or of Finances conspired with co-accused indorser, without receiving value therefor, and PAMINTUAN and MANIEGO, in unlawfully, for the purpose of lending his name to some willfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and other person." without authority of law, accepting from them • As such, she is under the law "liable on the several checks drawn against PNB and BPI. instrument to a holder for value, • In the check, PAMINTUAN was the drawer notwithstanding such holder at the time of and the accused, MANIEGO, was the indorser, taking the instrument knew ** (her) to be only in the total amount of P66,434.50, cashing said an accommodation party,” although she has checks and using for this purpose the public the right, after paying the holder, to obtain funds entrusted to and placed under the reimbursement from the party accommodated, custody and control of the said Lt. Ubay, "since the relation between them is in effect knowing fully well that the said checks are that of principal and surety, the worthless and are not covered by funds in the accommodation party being the surety." aforementioned banks, for which reason the same were dishonored and rejected by the said banks when presented for encashment, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines, in the amount of P66,434.50. • The CFI convicted Lt. Ubay and acquitted Maniego for lack of evidence against her. However, both are ordered to solidarily pay the government. • Seeking reconsideration of the judgment, Maniego faulted the lower court in adjudging her civilly liable, after her acquittal, as an indorser, thus, making her indemnify the government for the amount of the checks.