Scribd
Upload
108 views2 pages

Case Title People vs. Wagas G.R. NO. G.R. No. 157943 Ponente Bersamin, J. DATE September 4, 2013 Doctrine

1) The case involved Gilbert Wagas who was charged with estafa for issuing a postdated check of ₱200,000 payable to cash to Ligaray for goods received but was later dishonored due to insufficient funds. 2) Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a check payable to the bearer can be negotiated through mere delivery without endorsement. Since the check was payable to cash, it was an instrument payable to the bearer. 3) The Supreme Court ruled there was insufficient evidence that Wagas negotiated the check directly to Ligaray, as it was likely the check was given to someone else like Wagas' brother-in-law, who

Uploaded by

at
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views2 pages

Case Title People vs. Wagas G.R. NO. G.R. No. 157943 Ponente Bersamin, J. DATE September 4, 2013 Doctrine

1) The case involved Gilbert Wagas who was charged with estafa for issuing a postdated check of ₱200,000 payable to cash to Ligaray for goods received but was later dishonored due to insufficient funds. 2) Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a check payable to the bearer can be negotiated through mere delivery without endorsement. Since the check was payable to cash, it was an instrument payable to the bearer. 3) The Supreme Court ruled there was insufficient evidence that Wagas negotiated the check directly to Ligaray, as it was likely the check was given to someone else like Wagas' brother-in-law, who

Uploaded by

at
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

 

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND INSOLVENCY LAW – 2H 2020-2021

CASE TITLE People vs. Wagas G.R. NO. G.R. No. 157943

PONENTE Bersamin, J. DATE September 4, 2013

DOCTRINE [Topic] Omissions and provisions that fo not affect negotiability

[Doctrine]
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a check payable to the bearer could be negotiated
by mere delivery without the need of an indorsement.

FACTS [Facts]
The accused, Gilbert Wagas, was charged with estafa.
Ligaray testified that Wagas placed an order for 200 bags of rice over the telephone; that he and his
wife would not agree at first to the proposed payment of the order by postdated check, but because of
Wagas’ assurance that he would not disappoint them and that he had the means to pay them because
he had a lending business and money in the bank, they relented and accepted the order; that he
released the goods to Wagas and at the same time received a Check for ₱200,000.00 payable to cash
and postdated that he later deposited the check with Solid Bank, his depository bank, but the check was
dishonored due to insufficiency of funds; that he called Wagas about the matter, and the latter told him
that he would pay upon his return to Cebu; and that despite repeated demands, Wagas did not pay him.
Wagas himself testified. He admitted having issued a check to Cañada, his brother-in-law, not to
Ligaray. He denied having any telephone conversation or any dealings with Ligaray. He explained that
the check was intended as payment for a portion of Cañada’s property that he wanted to buy, but when
the sale did not push through, he did not anymore fund the check.
Wagas admitted the letter, signed by him and addressed to Ligaray’s counsel, wherein he admitted
owing Ligaray ₱200,000.00 for goods received, but insisted that it was Cañada who had transacted with
Ligaray, and that he had signed the letter only because his sister and her husband (Cañada) had
begged him to assume the responsibility. 

On redirect examination, Wagas declared that Cañada, a seafarer, was then out of the country; that he
signed the letter only to accommodate the pleas of his sister and Cañada, and to avoid jeopardizing
Cañada’s application for overseas employment.

ISSUE/S [Issue/s] Whether or not the check must be presumed to be given by Respondent.

RULING/S
[Ruling]
No, Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a check payable to the bearer could be negotiated by
mere delivery without the need of an indorsement.
In the present case, the check delivered to Ligaray was made payable to cash hence the said
instrument is an instrument payable to bearer. The Supreme Court held that this rendered it highly
probable that Wagas had issued the check not to Ligaray, but to somebody else like Cañada, his
brother-in-law, who then negotiated it to Ligaray. Relevantly, Ligaray confirmed that he did not
himself see or meet Wagas at the time of the transaction and thereafter, and expressly stated that
the person who signed for and received the stocks of rice was Cañada.

Therefore, the court held that there was no sufficient evidence that respondent was the one who
negotiated the check to Ligaray.
 
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND INSOLVENCY LAW – 2H 2020-2021

You might also like