Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Asia Banking Corp v. Javier

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant Javier, absolving him of liability as endorser of two checks. Under Philippine law, an endorser is released from liability if they are not notified in a timely manner that a check has been dishonored. The plaintiff Asia Banking Corporation did not provide any proof that they notified Javier that the checks drawn by Salvador B. Chaves on the Philippine National Bank had been dishonored. As proper notice is required to establish an endorser's liability, and ABC did not demonstrate they provided such notice, Javier was not liable.

Uploaded by

Eileen Kay A. Mañibo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Asia Banking Corp v. Javier

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant Javier, absolving him of liability as endorser of two checks. Under Philippine law, an endorser is released from liability if they are not notified in a timely manner that a check has been dishonored. The plaintiff Asia Banking Corporation did not provide any proof that they notified Javier that the checks drawn by Salvador B. Chaves on the Philippine National Bank had been dishonored. As proper notice is required to establish an endorser's liability, and ABC did not demonstrate they provided such notice, Javier was not liable.

Uploaded by

Eileen Kay A. Mañibo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Held
  • Facts of the Case
  • Case Overview
  • Issue of Liability
  • Judgment

Asia Banking Corporation v.

Javier
G.R. No. L-19051, April 4, 1923
43 Phil 779
Avancea, J: If, after a negotiable instrument is dishonored for non-acceptance of
non-payment, the endorser is not notified of the fact in the time and manner
prescribed by the law, said endorser is released from all liability upon the
document.
FACTS:
On May 10, 1920, Salvador B. Chaves drew a check on the Philippine National
Bank for P11,000 in favor of La Insular, a concern doing business in this city. This
check was endorsed by the limited partners of La Insular, and then deposited by
Salvador B. Chaves in his current account with the plaintiff, Asia Banking
Corporation (ABC). The deposit was made on July 14, 1920.
On June 25, 1920, Salvador B. Chaves drew another check for P18,785.30 on
the Philippine National Bank, in favor of the aforesaid La Insular. This check was also
endorsed by the limited partners of La Insular, and was likewise deposited by
Salvador B. Chaves in his current account with ABC, on July 6, 1920.
After the checks were deposited in ABC bank, the amount represented by
both checks was used by Salvador B. Chaves by drawing checks on the plaintiff.
Subsequently these checks were presented by the ABC to the Philippine National
Bank for payment, but the latter refused to pay on the ground that the drawer,
Salvador B. Chaves, had no funds therein.
Lower court ruled in favor of the ABC, sentencing Javier to pay the value of
both checks; hence the appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the liability of defendant Javier as endorser of the checks in
question was extinguished?
HELD:
YES. The Court ruled that the liability of the defendant never arose. Section
89 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031) provides that, when a
negotiable instrument is dishonored for non-acceptance or non-payment, notice
thereof must be given to the drawer and of each of the endorsers, and those who
are not notified that the document was dishonored. Then, under the general
principle of the law of procedure, it will be incumbent upon the plaintiff, who seeks
to enforce the defendant's liability upon these checks as endorser, to establish said
liability by proving that notice was given to the defendant within the time, and in
the manner, required by the law that the checks in question had been dishonored. If
these facts are not proven, the plaintiff has not sufficiently established the
defendant's liability. There is no proof in the record tending to show that plaintiff
ABC gave any notice whatsoever to the defendant that the checks in question had
been dishonored, and therefore it has not established its cause of action.

For the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the defendant
is absolved from the complaint without special pronouncement as to costs.

You might also like