1. Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals
CA and EDEN TAN
[G.R. No. L-49188. January 30, 1990]
FACTS
Amelia Tan was found to have been wronged by
Philippine Air Lines (PAL). She filed her complaint in
1967. After ten (10) years of protracted litigation in the
Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals, Ms.
Tan won her case. Almost twenty-two (22) years later,
Ms. Tan has not seen a centavo of what the courts have
solemnly declared as rightfully hers. Through absolutely
no fault of her own, Ms. Tan has been deprived of what,
technically, she should have been paid from the
start, before 1967, without need of her going to court to
enforce her rights. And all because PAL did not issue the
checks intended for her, in her name. Petitioner PAL
filed a petition for review on certiorari the decision of
Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari
against the order of the Court of First Instance (CFI)
which issued an alias writ of execution against them.
Petitioner alleged that the payment in check had already
been effected to the absconding sheriff, satisfying the
judgment.
ISSUE
Whether or not payment by check to the sheriff
extinguished the judgment debt.
RULING
NO. The payment made by the petitioner to the
absconding sheriff was not in cash or legal tender but in
checks. The checks were not payable to Amelia Tan or
Able Printing Press but to the absconding sheriff.In the
absence of an agreement, either express or implied,
payment means the discharge of a debt or obligation in
money and unless the parties so agree, a debtor has no
rights, except at his own peril, to substitute something in
lieu of cash as medium of payment of his debt. Strictly
speaking, the acceptance by the sheriff of the
petitioners checks, in the case at bar, does not, per se,
operate as a discharge of the judgment debt. The check
as a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money
and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does
not, by itself, operate as payment. A check, whether a
managers check or ordinary cheek, is not legal tender,
and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a
valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by
the obligee or creditor. Mere delivery of checks does not
discharge the obligation under a judgment. The
obligation is not extinguished and remains suspended
until the payment by commercial document is actually
realized (Art. 1249, Civil Code, par. 3).
2. TIBAJIA vs.
G.R. No. 100290 June 4, 1993
FACTS
A suit for collection of a sum of money filed by Eden Tan
against the Tibajia spouses
A writ of attachment was issued by the trial court
The Deputy Sheriff filed a return stating that a deposit
made by the Tibajia spouses had been garnished by
him.
Tibajia spouses delivered to Deputy Sheriff Eduardo
Bolima the total money judgment in check
Private respondent refused to accept the payment made
by the Tibajia spouses and instead insisted that the
garnished funds deposited be withdrawn to satisfy the
judgment obligation.
Petitioners filed a motion to lift the writ of execution on
the ground that the judgment debt had already been paid
Motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that
payment in cashier's check is not payment in legal
tender and that payment was made by a third party other
than the defendant
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE BPI CASHIER'S CHECK
TENDERED BY PETITIONERS FOR PAYMENT OF
THE JUDGMENT DEBT, IS "LEGAL TENDER"
RULING
The provisions of law applicable to the case at bar are
the following:
a. Article 1249 of the Civil Code which provides:
Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made
in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to
deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal
tender in the Philippines.
The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or
bills of exchange or other mercantile documents shall
produce the effect of payment only when they have been
cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they
have been impaired.
In the meantime, the action derived from the original
obligation shall be held in abeyance.;
b. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 529, as amended,
which provides:
Sec. 1. Every provision contained in, or made with
respect to, any obligation which purports to give the
obligee the right to require payment in gold or in any
particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine
currency or in an amount of money of the Philippines
measured thereby, shall be as it is hereby declared
against public policy null and void, and of no effect, and
no such provision shall be contained in, or made with
respect to, any obligation thereafter incurred. Every
obligation heretofore and hereafter incurred, whether or
not any such provision as to payment is contained
therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged
upon payment in any coin or currency which at the time
of payment is legal tender for public and private debts
Section 63 of Republic Act No. 265, as amended
(Central Bank Act) which provides:
Sec. 63. Legal character Checks representing deposit
money do not have legal tender power and their
acceptance in the payment of debts, both public and
private, is at the option of the creditor: Provided,
however, that a check which has been cleared and
credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent
to a delivery to the creditor of cash in an amount equal to
the amount credited to his account.
In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals 4 and Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc.
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 5 this Court held that
A check, whether a manager's check or ordinary check,
is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of
a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be
refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.
2. Tibajia vs. CA GR 100290, 4 June 1993 Second
Division, Padilla (J)
Facts: A suit for collection of sum of money was ruled in
favor of Eden Tan and against the spouses Norberto Jr.
and Carmen Tibajia. After the decision was made final,
Tan filed a motion for execution and levied upon the
garnished funds which were deposited by the spouses
with the cashier of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. The
spouses, however, delivered to the deputy sheriff the
total money judgment in the form of Cashiers Check
(P262,750) and Cash (P135,733.70). Tan refused the
payment and insisted upon the garnished funds to
satisfy the judgment obligation. The spouses filed a
motion to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the
judgment debt had already been paid. The motion was
denied.
Issue: Whether the spouses have satisfied the judgment
obligation after the delivery of the cashiers check and
cash to the deputy sheriff.
Held: A check, whether a managers check or ordinary
check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in
payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and
may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor
(Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals; Roman Catholic
Bishop of Malolos vs. Intermediate Appellate Court). The
court is not, by decision, sanctioning the use of a check
for the payment of obligations over the objection of the
creditor (Fortunado vs. Court of Appeals).
3. Hongkong & Shanghai Bank vs. Peoples Bank
and Trust GR L-28226, 30 September 1970 First
Division, Fernando (J)
Facts: The Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT) drew a check on the Hongkong &
Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) in the latters
favor for P14,608.05, and sent it through mail. The check
fell into the hands of Florentino Changco, who was able
to erase the name of the payee and substituted his own,
and deposited the altered check in his current account
with the Peoples Bank and Trust Co. (PBTC). The
check was cleared by HSBC, and PBTC credited
Changco the amount. The alteration was known when
the cancelled check was returned to PLDT. HSBC
requested PBTC to refund the amount, but the latter
refused.
Issue: Whether HSBC can claim reimbursement from
PBTC.
Held: A person who presents fro payment checks
guarantees the genuineness of the check, and the
drawee bank need to concern itself with nothing but the
genuineness of the signature, and the state of the
account with it of the drawee. If at all, whatever remedy,
whatever remedy HSBC has would lie not against PBTC
but as against the party responsible for changing the
name of the payee (i.e. Changco). Its failure to call the
attention of PBTC as to such alteration until after the
lapse of 27 days would, in the light of Central Bank
Circular 9 (24-hour clearing house rule), negate
whatever right it might have had against PBTC.
4. Caltex (Philippines) Inc. vs. CA GR 97753, 10
August 1992 Second Division, Regalado (J)
Facts: On various dates, Security Bank and Trust Co.
(SEBTC), through its Sucat branch, issued 280
certificates of time deposit (CTD) in favor of one Angel
dela Cruz who deposited with the bank the aggregate
amount of P1.12 million. Anger de la Cruz delivered the
CTDs to Caltex in connection with his purchase of fuel
products from the latter. Subsequently, dela Cruz
informed the bank that he lost all the CTDs, and thus
executed an affidavit of loss to facilitate the issuance of
the replacement CTDs. De la Cruz was able to obtain a
loan of P875,000 from the bank, and in turn, he
executed a notarized Deed of Assignment of Time
Deposit in favor of the bank. Thereafter, Caltex
presented for verification the CTDs (which were declared
lost by de la Cruz) with the bank. Caltex formally
informed the bank of its possession of the CTDs and its
decision to preterminate the same. The bank rejected
Caltex claim and demand, after Caltex failed to furnish
copy of the requested documents evidencing the
guarantee agreement, etc. In 1983, de la Cruz loan
matured and the bank set-off and applied the time
deposits as payment for the loan. Caltex filed the
complaint, but which was dismissed.
Issue [1]: Whether the Certificates of Time Deposit
(CTDs) are negotiable instruments.
Held [1]: The CTDs in question meet the requirements of
the law for negotiability. Contrary to the lower courts
findings, the CTDs are negotiable instruments (Section
1). Negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is
determined from the writing, i.e. from the face of the
instrument itself. The documents provided that the
amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor.
The amounts are to be repayable to the bearer of the
documents, i.e. whosoever may be the bearer at the
time of presentment.
Issue [2]: Whether the CTDs negotiation require delivery
only.
Held [2]: Although the CTDs are bearer instruments, a
valid negotiation thereof for the true purpose and
agreement between it (Caltex) and de la Cruz requires
both delivery and indorsement; as the CTDs were
delivered to it as security for dela Cruz purchases of its
fuel products, and not for payment. Herein, there was no
negotiation in the sense of a transfer of title, or legal title,
to the CTDs in which situation mere delivery of the
bearer CTDs would have sufficed. The delivery thereof
as security for the fuel purchases at most constitutes
Caltex as a holder for value by reason of his lien.
Accordingly, a negotiation for such purpose cannot be
effected by mere delivery of the instrument since the
terms thereof and the subsequent disposition of such
security, in the event of non-payment of the principal
obligation, must be contractually provided for.
5. Salas vs Court of Appeals and Filinvest Finance
G.R. No. 76788 January 22, 1990 Fernan, C.J. Facts:
Juanita Salas bought a motor vehicle from the Violago
Motor Sales Corporation as evidenced by a promissory
note. This note was subsequently endorsed to Filinvest
Finance & Leasing Corporation which financed the
purchase. Petitioner defaulted in her installments
allegedly due to a discrepancy in the engine and chassis
numbers of the vehicle delivered to her and those
indicated in the sales invoice, certificate of registration
and deed of chattel mortgage, which fact she discovered
when the vehicle figured in an accident on 9 May 1980.
This failure to pay prompted Filinvest Finance to initiate
a civil action for a sum of money against petitioner
before the RTC-San Fernando, Pampanga. The trial
court favored petitioner and ordered Salas to pay the
amount; the CA affirmed the decision. On this petition,
imputing fraud, bad faith and misrepresentation against
VMS for having delivered a different vehicle to petitioner,
she prayed for a reversal of the trial court's decision so
that she may be absolved from the obligation under the
contract on the ground that the provision of the law on
sales by description is applicable here; hence, no
contract ever existed between her and VMS and
therefore none had been assigned in favor of private
respondent.
Issue:
Whether the promissory note in question is a negotiable
instrument which will bar completely all the available
defenses of the petitioner against private respondent.
Ruling:
No. Petitioner cannot set up against respondent the
defense of nullity of the
contract of sale between her and VMS. A careful study
of the questioned promissory note shows that it is a
negotiable instrument, having complied with the
requisites under the law as follows: [a] it is in writing and
signed by the maker Juanita Salas; [b] it contains an
unconditional promise to pay the amount of P58,138.20;
[c] it is payable at a fixed or determinable future time
which is "P1,614.95 monthly for 36 months due and
payable on the 21 st day of each month starting March
21, 1980 thru and inclusive of Feb. 21, 1983;" [d] it is
payable to Violago Motor Sales Corporation,or order and
as such, [e] the drawee is named or indicated with
certainty. It was negotiated by indorsement in writing on
the instrument itself payable to the Order of Filinvest
Finance and Leasing Corporation and it is an
indorsement of the entire instrument. Under the
circumstances, there appears to be no question that
Filinvest is a holder in due course, having taken the
instrument under the following conditions: [a] it is
complete and regular upon its face; [b] it became the
holder thereof before it was overdue, and without notice
that it had previously been dishonored; [c] it took the
same in good faith and for value; and [d] when it was
negotiated to Filinvest, the latter had no notice of any
infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of VMS
Corporation. Accordingly, respondent corporation holds
the instrument free from any defect of title of prior
parties, and free from defenses available to prior parties
among themselves, and may enforce payment of the
instrument for the full amount thereof.
6. Ang Tek Lian vs. Court of Appeals
L-2516 September, 1950
Bengzon, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner drew a check payable to
"cash"knowing that he had no funds in his account. He
delivered said check to Hong for which the latter handed
him money. When the check was presented for
payment it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. An
information for the crime of estafa was filed against Ang
Tek Lian. Petitioner however argues that he is not guilty
of the offense charged because he did not endorse the
check which was made payable to "cash".
ISSUE:
Whether a check payable to "cash" requires an
indorsement by the drawer for it to be encashed.
Held:
No.Under Sec. 9 of NIL a check drawn payable
to the order of cash is a check payable to bearer and
the bank may pay it to the person presenting it for
payment without the drawers indorsement. However, if
the bank is not sure of the bearers identity or financial
solvency, it has the right to demand identification or
assurance against possible complication, such as
forgery of drawers signature, loss of the check by the
rightful owner, raising of the amount payable, etc. But
where the bank is satisfied of the identity or economic
standing of the bearer who tenders the check for
collection, it will pay the instrument without further
question; and it would incur no liability to the drawer in
thus acting.
Ang Tek Lian vs. Court of Appeals
FACTS: Knowing he had no funds therefor, petitioner
Ang Tek Lian drew a check upon the China Banking
Corporation for the sum of P4,000, payable to the order
of cash. He delivered it to Lee Hua Hong in exchange
for money which the latter handed in the act. The next
business day, the check was presented by Lee Hua
Hong to the drawee bank for payment, but it was
dishonored for insufficiency of funds, the balance of the
deposit of Ang Tek Lian on both dates being P335 only.
Petitioner was sued for estafa. In his defense, however,
he argues that as the check had been made payable to
cash and had not been endorsed by Ang Tek Lian, the
defendant is not guilty of the offense charged.
ISSUE: WON a check payable to cash needs
indorsement?
HELD: NO. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law (sec.
9 [d], a check drawn payable to the order of cash is a
check payable to bearer, and the bank may pay it to the
person presenting it for payment without the drawers
indorsement. Where a check is made payable to the
order of cash, the word cash does not purport to be the
name of any person, and hence the instrument is
payable to bearer. The drawee bank need not obtain any
indorsement of the check, but may pay it to the person
presenting it without any indorsement.
7. Abubakar vs. Auditor General GR L-1405, 31 July
1948 First Division, Bengzon (J)
In 1941, a treasury warrant was issued in favor of
Placido Urbanes, a government employee in the
province of La Union. The said treasury warrant was
meant to augment the Food Production Campaign in the
said province. It was then negotiated by Urbanes to
Benjamin Abubakar, a private individual. When
Abubakar sought to have the treasury warrant encashed,
the Auditor General denied payment because first of, it is
against the appropriating law (Republic Act 80) to
authorize payments to private individuals when it comes
to treasury warrants. Abubakar then contends that he is
entitled to encash as he was a holder in good faith.
ISSUE: Whether or not a treasury warrant is a
negotiable instrument.
HELD: No. A treasury warrant is not a negotiable
instrument. One of the requirements of a negotiable
instrument is that it must be unconditional. In Section 3
of the Negotiable Instruments Law, an order or promise
to pay out of a particular fund makes the instrument
conditional. A treasury warrant, like the one in this case,
comes from a particular fund, a particular appropriation.
In this case, it was written on the face of the treasury
warrant that it is payable from the appropriation for food
administration. Thus, it is not negotiable for being
conditional.
8. Jimenez vs. Bucoy GR L-10221, 28 February 1958
En Banc, Bengzon (J)
During the Japanese occupation, Pacita Young issued
three promissory notes to Pacifica Jimenez. The total
sum of the notes was P21k. All three promissory notes
were couched in this manner:
Received from Miss Pacifica Jimenez the total amount of
___________ payable six months after the war, without
interest.
When the promissory notes became due, Jimenez
presented the notes for payment. Pacita and her
husband died and so the notes were presented to the
administrator of the estate of the spouses (Dr. Jose
Bucoy). Bucoy manifested his willingness to pay but he
said that since the loan was contracted during the
Japanee occupation the amount should be deducted and
the Ballantyne Schedule should be used, that is peso-
for-yen (which would lower the amount due from P21k).
Bucoy also pointed out that nowhere in the not can be
seen an express promise to pay because of the
absence of the words I promise to pay
ISSUE: Whether or not Bucoy is correct.
HELD: No. The Ballantyne schedule may not be used
here because the debt is not payable during the
Japanese occupation. It is expressly stated in the notes
that the amounts stated therein are payable six months
after the war. Therefore, no reduction could be effected,
and peso-for-peso payment shall be ordered in
Philippine currency.
The notes also amounted in effect to a promise to pay
the amounts indicated therein. An acknowledgment may
become a promise by the addition of words by which a
promise of payment is naturally implied, such as,
payable, payable on a given day, payable on
demand, paid . . . when called for, . . . To constitute a
good promissory note, no precise words of contract are
necessary, provided they amount, in legal effect, to a
promise to pay. In other words, if over and above the
mere acknowledgment of the debt there may be
collected from the words used a promise to pay it, the
instrument may be regarded as a promissory note.
9. Firestone Tire and Rubber vs. Ines Chaves & Co.
GR L-17106, 19 October 1966 En Banc, Regala (J)
Facts: The check was intended as part of the payment of
Ines Chaves debt. When presented to the Security Bank
and Trust Co. by Firestone, the check was returned for
insufficiency of funds. Despite repeated demands, Ines
Chaves failed to settle its account; hence, the suit.
Issue: Whether good faith is required in the issuance of
a check.
Held: Everyone must in the performance of his duties,
observe honesty and good faith. Where a person issues
a postdated check without funds to cover it and informs
the payee of this fact, he cannot be held guilty of estafa
because there is no deceit. Herein, there is nothing in
the record to show that Firestone knew that there were
no funds when it accepted the check, much less that
Firestone agreed to take the check with knowledge of
the lack of funds. As Ines Chavez is guilty of fraud (bad
faith) in the performance of its obligation, it is liable for
damages. Its conduct wanting in good faith, the award of
attorneys fees was warranted.
10. PNB v. Rodriguez
GR No. 170325
Justice Reyes
Facts: Respondents-Spouses Erlando and Norma
Rodriguez were clients of petitioner Philippine National
Bank (PNB), Amelia Avenue Branch, Cebu City. They
maintained savings and demand/checking accounts,
namely, PNBig Demand Deposits (Checking/Current
Account No. 810624-6 under the account name Erlando
and/or Norma Rodriguez), and PNBig Demand Deposit
(Checking/Current Account No. 810480-4 under the
account name Erlando T. Rodriguez).
The spouses were engaged in the informal
lending business. In line with their business, they had a
discounting arrangement with the Philnabank Employees
Savings and Loan Association (PEMSLA), an
association of PNB employees. Naturally, PEMSLA was
likewise a client of PNB Amelia Avenue Branch. The
association maintained current and savings accounts
with petitioner bank.
PEMSLA regularly granted loans to its
members. Spouses Rodriguez would rediscount the
postdated checks issued to members whenever the
association was short of funds. As was customary, the
spouses would replace the postdated checks with their
own checks issued in the name of the members.
It was PEMSLAs policy not to approve
applications for loans of members with outstanding
debts. To subvert this policy, some PEMSLA officers
devised a scheme to obtain additional loans despite their
outstanding loan accounts. They took out loans in the
names of unknowing members, without the knowledge
or consent of the latter. The PEMSLA checks issued for
these loans were then given to the spouses for
rediscounting. The officers carried this out by forging the
indorsement of the named payees in the checks. In
return, the spouses issued their personal checks
(Rodriguez checks) in the name of the members and
delivered the checks to an officer of PEMSLA. The
PEMSLA checks, on the other hand, were deposited by
the spouses to their account.
Meanwhile, the Rodriguez checks were
deposited directly by PEMSLA to its savings
account without any indorsement from the named
payees. This was an irregular procedure made possible
through the facilitation of Edmundo Palermo, Jr.,
treasurer of PEMSLA and bank teller in
the PNB Branch. It appears that this became the usual
practice for the parties. For the period November 1998 to
February 1999, the spouses issued sixty nine (69)
checks, in the total amount ofP2,345,804.00. These
were payable to forty seven (47) individual payees who
were all members of PEMSLA.
Petitioner PNB eventually found out about these
fraudulent acts. To put a stop to this
scheme, PNB closed the current account of
PEMSLA. As a result, the PEMSLA checks deposited
by the spouses were returned or dishonored for the
reason Account Closed. The corresponding Rodriguez
checks, however, were deposited as usual to the
PEMSLA savings account. The amounts were duly
debited from the Rodriguez account. Thus, because
the PEMSLA checks given as payment were returned,
spouses Rodriguez incurred losses from the
rediscounting transactions.
Issue: Whether the subject checks are payable to order
or to bearer and who bears the loss?
Held: In the case at bar, respondents-spouses were the
banks depositors. The checks were drawn against
respondents-spouses accounts. PNB, as the drawee
bank, had the responsibility to ascertain the regularity of
the indorsements, and the genuineness of the
signatures on the checks before accepting them for
deposit. Lastly, PNB was obligated to pay the checks in
strict accordance with the instructions of the
drawers. Petitioner miserably failed to discharge this
burden.
The checks were presented to PNB for deposit
by a representative of PEMSLA absent any type of
indorsement, forged or otherwise. The facts clearly
show that the bank did not pay the checks in strict
accordance with the instructions of the drawers,
respondents-spouses. Instead, it paid the values of the
checks not to the named payees or their order, but to
PEMSLA, a third party to the transaction between the
drawers and the payees.
Moreover, PNB was negligent in the selection
and supervision of its employees. The trustworthiness of
bank employees is indispensable to maintain the stability
of the banking industry. Thus, banks are enjoined to be
extra vigilant in the management and supervision of their
employees.
11. Republic Planters Bank vs. CA GR 93073, 21
December 1992 Second Division, Campos Jr. (J)
In 1979, World Garment Manufacturing, through its
board authorized Shozo Yamaguchi (president) and
Fermin Canlas (treasurer) to obtain credit facilities from
Republic Planters Bank (RPB). For this, 9 promissory
notes were executed. Each promissory note was
uniformly written in the following manner:
___________, after date, for value received, I/we, jointly
and severally promise to pay to the ORDER of the
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, at its office in Manila,
Philippines, the sum of ___________ PESOS(.)
Philippine Currency
Please credit proceeds of this note to:
HELD:
________ Savings Account ______XX Current Account
No. 1372-00257-6 of WORLDWIDE GARMENT MFG. Accused tried to contend that if the trial court followed
CORP. the admission and stipulation of facts submitted by
them, it would prove that there was sufficient
Sgd. Shozo Yamaguchi funds. The check had a discrepancy between the
Sgd. Fermin Canlas amount in figures and in words. Following NIL,
the check was issued for P1,000,200meaning
that this could be validly supported by their
The note became due and no payment was made. RPB business funds. Nonetheless, this is misplaced
eventually sued Yamaguchi and Canlas. Canlas, in his since this rule of interpretation finds no room in this
defense, averred that he should not be held personally case. The agreement was perfectly clear that at
liable for such authorized corporate acts that he the end of 21 days, the investment of complainant
performed inasmuch as he signed the promissory notes would increase by 800% or P1,200,000.
in his capacity as officer of the defunct Worldwide
Garment Manufacturing.
ISSUE: Whether or not Canlas should be held liable for
the promissory notes.
HELD: Yes. The solidary liability of private respondent
Fermin Canlas is made clearer and certain, without
reason for ambiguity, by the presence of the phrase
joint and several as describing the unconditional
promise to pay to the order of Republic Planters Bank.
Where an instrument containing the words I promise to
pay is signed by two or more persons, they are deemed
to be jointly and severally liable thereon.
Canlas is solidarily liable on each of the promissory
notes bearing his signature for the following reasons:
The promissory notes are negotiable instruments and
must be governed by the Negotiable Instruments Law.
Under the Negotiable lnstruments Law, persons who
write their names on the face of promissory notes are
makers and are liable as such. By signing the notes, the
maker promises to pay to the order of the payee or any
holder according to the tenor thereof.

12. PEOPLE V. ROMERO

FACTS:
Complainant was a radio commentator who
interviewed the two accused regarding their
marketing business, which solicits funds from the
general public, promising an 800% profit. The latter
induced the complainant to invest in the business,
in the process thereof, issued a postdated check
wherein the amount in figures was P1,200,000 and
the amount in words was P1,000,200. The check
when presented in the bank was dishonored and the
accused refused to redeem or pay the check. This
prompted the complainant to file a case of estafa against
the accused to which they were
found guilty of.