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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Peco V Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Raiza Sunggay
    NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT LAW

    Copyright:

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

    Peco V Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Raiza Sunggay
    1 views1 page
    NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT LAW

    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?

    NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT LAW

    Copyright:

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

    Peco V Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Raiza Sunggay
    NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT LAW

    Copyright:

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

    PECO V SORIANO

    Facts: A certain Enrique Montinola sought to purchase from Manila Post Office ten
    money orders of 200php each payable to E. P. Montinola. Montinola offered to pay with
    the money orders with a private check but they were not generally accepted in payment
    of money orders, so the teller advised him to see the Chief of the Money Order Division,
    but instead of doing so, Montinola managed to leave the building without the knowledge
    of the teller. Upon the disappearance of the unpaid money order, a message was sent
    to instruct all banks that they must not pay for the money order stolen upon
    presentment. The Bank of America received a copy of the said notice. However, The
    Bank of America received the money order and deposited it to the appellant’s account
    upon clearance. Mauricio Soriano, Chief of the Money Order Division notified the Bank
    of America that the money order deposited had been found to have been irregularly
    issued and that, the amount it represented had been deducted from the bank’s clearing
    account. The Bank of America debited the appellant’s account with the same account
    and give notice by means of a debit memo.
    Issue: Whether or not the postal money order in question is a negotiable instrument
    Held: No. It is not disputed that the Philippine postal statutes were patterned after
    similar statutes in force in the United States. The Weight of authority in the United
    States is that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments, the reason being that
    in establishing and operating a postal money order system, the government is not
    engaged 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 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.

    You might also like