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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    PECO V SORIANO

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Claudine Calugan
    The case involved 10 money orders purchased from the Manila Post Office by Enrique Montinola using a private check instead of paying cash. One of the unpaid money orders was received by Philippine Education Co. and deposited with the Bank of America. The Chief of the Money Order Division notified the bank that the money order was irregularly issued and deducted the amount from the bank's account. The Supreme Court ruled that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments because the government establishes the postal money order system to exercise a governmental power for public benefit rather than commercial transactions. The conditions imposed by the Director of Posts on redeeming money orders through banks were accepted by the Bank of America, so it was bound by those conditions.

    Copyright:

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

    PECO V SORIANO

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Claudine Calugan
    65 views1 page
    The case involved 10 money orders purchased from the Manila Post Office by Enrique Montinola using a private check instead of paying cash. One of the unpaid money orders was received by Philippine Education Co. and deposited with the Bank of America. The Chief of the Money Order Division notified the bank that the money order was irregularly issued and deducted the amount from the bank's account. The Supreme Court ruled that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments because the government establishes the postal money order system to exercise a governmental power for public benefit rather than commercial transactions. The conditions imposed by the Director of Posts on redeeming money orders through banks were accepted by the Bank of America, so it was bound by those conditions.

    Original Title

    PECO v SORIANO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved 10 money orders purchased from the Manila Post Office by Enrique Montinola using a private check instead of paying cash. One of the unpaid money orders was received by Philippine Education Co. and deposited with the Bank of America. The Chief of the Money Order Division notified the bank that the money order was irregularly issued and deducted the amount from the bank's account. The Supreme Court ruled that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments because the government establishes the postal money order system to exercise a governmental power for public benefit rather than commercial transactions. The conditions imposed by the Director of Posts on redeeming money orders through banks were accepted by the Bank of America, so it was bound by those conditions.

    Copyright:

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

    PECO V SORIANO

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Claudine Calugan
    The case involved 10 money orders purchased from the Manila Post Office by Enrique Montinola using a private check instead of paying cash. One of the unpaid money orders was received by Philippine Education Co. and deposited with the Bank of America. The Chief of the Money Order Division notified the bank that the money order was irregularly issued and deducted the amount from the bank's account. The Supreme Court ruled that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments because the government establishes the postal money order system to exercise a governmental power for public benefit rather than commercial transactions. The conditions imposed by the Director of Posts on redeeming money orders through banks were accepted by the Bank of America, so it was bound by those conditions.

    Copyright:

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

    PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO, INC.

    ,
    v. MAURICIO SORIANO, et al.
    G.R. No. L-22405
    June 30, 1971

    FACTS:
    The case involved money orders which are non-negotiable. Enrique Montinola sought to
    purchase from the Manila Post Office ten (10) money orders of P200.00 each payable
    to E.P. Montinola withaddress at Lucena, Quezon. After the postal teller had made out
    money orders, Montinola offered to pay for them with a private checks and teller
    advised him to see the Chief of the Money Order Division. Instead of doing so,
    Montinola managed to leave building with his own check and the ten(10) money orders
    without the knowledge of the teller.
    Upon discovery of the disappearance of the unpaid money orders, an urgent message
    was sent to all postmasters and all banks, instructing them not to pay anyone of the
    money orders if presented for payment. One of the money orders numbered 124688
    was received by Philippine Education Co, Inc. as part of its sales receipts. The
    following day it deposited the same with the Bank of America, and cleared it with the
    Bureau of Posts and received a face value of P200.00.
    Mauricio A. Soriano, Chief of the Money Order Division of the Manila Post Office,
    notified the Bank of America that the money order had been found to have been
    irregularly issued and the amount it represented had been deducted from the bank's
    clearing account.

    ISSUE:
    Are the postal money orders considered as negotiable instruments?

    RULING:
    NO. Postal money orders are not negotiable instruments, the reason behind this rule
    being that, in establishing and operating a postal money order system, the government
    is not engaging in commercial transactions but merely exercises a governmental power
    for the public benefit.
    Some of the restrictions imposed upon money orders by postal laws and regulations are
    inconsistent with the character of negotiable instruments. 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
    On the case at bar, particular application to the postal money order in question are the
    conditions laid down in the letter of the Director of Posts to the Bank of America for the
    redemption of postal money orders received by it from its depositors. The conditions
    imposed in order to enable the bank to continue enjoying the facilities theretofore
    enjoyed by its depositors, were accepted by the Bank of America. The Bank of America
    is therefore bound by them.

    You might also like