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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Case #10 Benjamin-Abubakar-V-Auditor-general

    Uploaded by

    pistekayawa
    1) A treasury warrant worth PHP1,000 was issued to a government employee for food administration and was now held by the petitioner, a private individual. 2) The Auditor General refused payment on the warrant because the petitioner did not show he received it for a government obligation. 3) The court ruled the treasury warrant was not a negotiable instrument because it was conditional, as it was payable from a particular appropriation fund for food administration, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to rights of a holder in due course.

    Copyright:

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

    Case #10 Benjamin-Abubakar-V-Auditor-general

    Uploaded by

    pistekayawa
    80 views1 page
    1) A treasury warrant worth PHP1,000 was issued to a government employee for food administration and was now held by the petitioner, a private individual. 2) The Auditor General refused payment on the warrant because the petitioner did not show he received it for a government obligation. 3) The court ruled the treasury warrant was not a negotiable instrument because it was conditional, as it was payable from a particular appropriation fund for food administration, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to rights of a holder in due course.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A treasury warrant worth PHP1,000 was issued to a government employee for food administration and was now held by the petitioner, a private individual. 2) The Auditor General refused payment on the warrant because the petitioner did not show he received it for a government obligation. 3) The court ruled the treasury warrant was not a negotiable instrument because it was conditional, as it was payable from a particular appropriation fund for food administration, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to rights of a holder in due course.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views1 page

    Case #10 Benjamin-Abubakar-V-Auditor-general

    Uploaded by

    pistekayawa
    1) A treasury warrant worth PHP1,000 was issued to a government employee for food administration and was now held by the petitioner, a private individual. 2) The Auditor General refused payment on the warrant because the petitioner did not show he received it for a government obligation. 3) The court ruled the treasury warrant was not a negotiable instrument because it was conditional, as it was payable from a particular appropriation fund for food administration, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to rights of a holder in due course.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, petitioner vs. THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent.

    G.R. No. L-1405 July 31, 1948

    Topic: Form and interpretation – Unconditional promise or order to pay

    Facts:

    On December 10, 1941, a treasury warrant worth PHP1,000.00 was issued in favor of a certain Placido
    Urbanes, a government employee for food administration. The warrant was now in the hands of the
    petitioner, a private individual.

    The Auditor General refused to authorize the payment of Treasury warrant for the reason that one of the
    requirements is it should be shown that the holder of the warrant has received such warrant in payment
    of definite government obligations.

    Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argues that he is a holder in good faith and for value of a
    negotiable instrument and is entitled to the rights and privileges of a holder in due course, free from
    defenses.

    Issue: Whether or not the treasury warrant is a negotiable instrument.

    Ruling: No, the warrant is not a Negotiable instrument.

    A negotiable instrument is unconditional.

    Section 3 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, an order or promise to pay out of a particular fund makes
    the instrument conditional.

    The treasury warrant comes from a particular fund or appropriation and such makes it conditional. In
    this case, on the face of the treasury, it was written “Payable for the appropriation for food
    administration”. Therefore, it is not negotiable because it is conditional.

    You might also like