0 Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Bedan Law Notes

Popular Posts

Metrobank vs. CA
Metropol vs. Sambok
Metropolitan Bank
& Trust Company
vs. Court of
Appeals G.R. No.
88866
Metropol vs. Sambok
February, 18, 1991 L-39641 February 28, 1983
Cruz, J.: ... De Castro, J.:
PECO vs. Soriano
Philippine Facts:
Education Co. vs. Dr. Javier Villaruel executed a
Soriano L-22405
June 30, 1971
promissory note in favor of Ng
Dizon, J.: Facts: Sambok Sons Motors Co., Ltd.
Enrique Payable in 12 equal monthly
Mont...
installments with interest. It is
State Investment further provided that in case on
House Inc. vs. CA non-payment of any of the
State Investment
House Inc. vs. CA installments, the total principal sum
GR No. 101163 then remaining unpaid shall become
January 11, 1993
Bellosillo, J.: Facts: due and payable with an additional
Nora Moulic issued interest. Sambok Motors co., a sister
to Corazo... company of Ng Sambok Sons
Ang Tek Lian vs. negotiated and indorsed the note in
CA favor of Metropol Financing &
Ang Tek Lian vs. investment Corporation. Villaruel
Court of Appeals L-
2516 defaulted in the payment, upon
September, 1950 presentment of the promissory note
Bengzon, J.: Facts:
An... he failed to pay the promissory note
as demanded, hence Ng Sambok Sons
Republic Bank vs. Motors Co., Ltd. notified Sambok as
CA
Republic Bank vs. indorsee that the promissory note
Court of Appeals has been dishonored and demanded
GR No. 42725
April
payment. Sambok failed to pay. Ng
22, 1991 Grino Sambok Sons filed a complaint for
Aquino, J.: Facts: the collection of sum of money.
...
During the pendency of the case
Case Doctrines on Villaruel died. Sambok argues that by
Negotaible adding the words with recourse in
Instruments Law
Philippine the indorsement of the note, it
Education Co. vs. becomes a qualified indorser, thus, it
Soriano The Weight does not warrant that in case that the
of authority in the
United States is maker failed to pay upon
that postal money presentment it will pay the amount
orders are not
negotiable instr... to the holder.

Case Doctrines on Issue:

Transportation Law
De Guzman vs.
Whether or not Sambok Pages - Menu
Court of Appeals Motors Co is a qualified indorser,
Article 1732 makes Home
thus it is not liable upon the failure
no distinction Legal Ethics
between one of payment of the maker.
whose principal Negotiables Instruments
business activity is Transportation Law
the carrying of
Held:
perso... No. A qualified indorserment
constitutes the indorser a mere Blog Archive
assignor of the title to the 2015 (2)
Labels
instrument. It may be made by
2013 (12)
case digest adding to the indorsers signature the
July (3)
case doctrines words without recourse or any
commercial words of similar import. Such May (9)

law Legal Ethics indorsement relieves the indorser of Case Doctrines on Negotaible Instruments Law

negotiable the general obligation to pay if the Citytrust vs. IAC

instrument is dishonored but not of
instruments State Investment House Inc. vs. CA
the liability arising from warranties
law Torts and Metropol vs. Sambok
Damages Transportation
on the instrument as provided by
Republic Bank vs. CA
Law section 65 of NIL. However, Sambok
Ang Tek Lian vs. CA
indorsed the note with recourse
and even waived the notice of Firestone Tire vs. CA
demand, dishonor, protest and Metrobank vs. CA
presentment. PECO vs. Soriano
Recourse means resort to a
person who is secondarily liable
after the default of the person who is Total Pageviews
primarily liable. Sambok by
indorsing the note with recourse 47091
does not make itself a qualified
indorser but a general indorser who
is secondarily liable, because by such
indorsement, it agreed that if
Villaruel fails to pay the not the
holder can go after it. The effect of
such indorsement is that the note
was indorsed witout qualification. A
person who indorses without
qualification engages that on due
presentment, the note shall be
accepted or paid, or both as the case
maybe, and that if it be dishonored,
he will pay the amount thereof to the
holder. The words added by Sambok
do not limit his liability, but rather
confirm his obligation as general
indorser.

Read full text here: Metropol

vs. Sambok

Recommend this on Google

No comments:
Post a Comment
 Enter your comment...

Comment as:
Google Account

Publish Preview

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

http://bedanlawnotes.blogspot.com. Simple template. Powered by Blogger.