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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Phil. Educ. Co., Inc. vs. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Ruchi Rabuya Baclayon
    Philippine Education Company received a money order as part of a sales receipt and deposited it with their bank, which was cleared by the Bureau of Posts. Over a year later, the bank was informed the money order was irregularly obtained and deducted the amount. The company filed for indemnification but it was denied. The Supreme Court ruled that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments as the government issues them to exercise governmental power for public benefit, not commercial transactions, and money orders have restrictions inconsistent with negotiable instruments like limits on endorsements and grounds for withholding payment.

    Copyright:

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

    Phil. Educ. Co., Inc. vs. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Ruchi Rabuya Baclayon
    15 views1 page
    Philippine Education Company received a money order as part of a sales receipt and deposited it with their bank, which was cleared by the Bureau of Posts. Over a year later, the bank was informed the money order was irregularly obtained and deducted the amount. The company filed for indemnification but it was denied. The Supreme Court ruled that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments as the government issues them to exercise governmental power for public benefit, not commercial transactions, and money orders have restrictions inconsistent with negotiable instruments like limits on endorsements and grounds for withholding payment.

    Original Description:

    gjkn

    Original Title

    Phil

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Philippine Education Company received a money order as part of a sales receipt and deposited it with their bank, which was cleared by the Bureau of Posts. Over a year later, the bank was informed the money order was irregularly obtained and deducted the amount. The company filed for indemnification but it was denied. The Supreme Court ruled that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments as the government issues them to exercise governmental power for public benefit, not commercial transactions, and money orders have restrictions inconsistent with negotiable instruments like limits on endorsements and grounds for withholding payment.

    Copyright:

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

    Phil. Educ. Co., Inc. vs. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Ruchi Rabuya Baclayon
    Philippine Education Company received a money order as part of a sales receipt and deposited it with their bank, which was cleared by the Bureau of Posts. Over a year later, the bank was informed the money order was irregularly obtained and deducted the amount. The company filed for indemnification but it was denied. The Supreme Court ruled that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments as the government issues them to exercise governmental power for public benefit, not commercial transactions, and money orders have restrictions inconsistent with negotiable instruments like limits on endorsements and grounds for withholding payment.

    Copyright:

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

    Phil. Educ. Co., Inc. vs.

     Soriano
    Philippine Education Company inc.,  vs. Soriano
    G.R.. No. L-22405 , June 30 1971
    FACTS:
    Enrique Montinola irregularly got hold of 10 money orders from Manila Post Office. Upon
    discovery of the disappearance of unpaid money orders, instructions to postmasters and banks
    were sent to not honor said my orders. Philippine Education Co. Inc. received one money order
    as part of its sales receipt and deposited same with Bank of America which was subsequently
    cleared with the Bureau of Posts. More than a year later, the appellee Chief of the Money Order
    Division of the Manila Post Office informed the bank about the irregularity and deducted the
    amount. Appellant requested the Postmaster General to reconsider but his request was denied.
    Montinola was charged with theft but was acquitted. Appellant filed an action for
    indemnification in the Municipal Court of Manila which rendered a decision favorable to
    appellant.
    ISSUE:
    Is postal money order a negotiable instrument?
    RULING:
    No, postal money orders are not negotiable instruments because in establishing and operating a
    postal money order system, the government is not engage in commercial transactions but merely
    exercises a governmental power for the public benefit. Moreover some of the restrictions
    imposed upon money orders by postal laws and regulations are inconsistent with the character of
    negotiable instrument. For instance, such laws and regulations usually provide for not more than
    one endorsement; payment of money orders may be withheld under a variety of circumstances

    You might also like