Nego Outline
Nego Outline
Nego Outline
INTRODUCTION
1.
Governing laws
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
CASES: Phil. Educ. Co., Inc. vs. Soriano, 39 SCRA 587; Tibajia, Jr. vs. CA, 223
SCRA 163; Philippine Airlines vs. CA, 181 SCRA 557
CASE: Philippine National Bank vs. Manila Oil Refining & By-Products
Company, 43 Phil 445
2.
CASES: Republic Planters Bank vs. CA, 216 SCRA 738; Sps. Evangelista vs.
Mercator Finance Corp., et al, August 21, 2003; Ilano vs. Hon. Espanol, G.R. No.
161756, 16 December 2005
NEGOTIATION
1.
Modes of transfer
2.
CASES: Read again: Sesbreo vs. CA, 222 SCRA 466; Consolidated Plywood
Inc. vs. IFC Leasing 149 SCRA 448
3.
4.
Concept of delivery
CASES: De la Victoria vs. Hon. Burgos, 245 SCRA 374; Development Bank of
Rizal vs. Sima Wei, 219 SCRA 736
5.
Indorsement
a. concept
b. how made (Sec. 31 & 32, NIL)
c. kinds:
(1)
special and blank (Sec. 34 & 35, NIL)
(2)
conditional (Sec. 39, NIL)
(3)
qualified (Sec. 38, NIL)
(4)
restrictive (Sec. 36 & 37, NIL)
d. other rules on indorsement
(1)
indorsement of an instrument payable to bearer (Sec. 40, NIL)
(2)
where instrument is payable to two or more persons (Sec. 21, NIL)
(3)
instrument is drawn or indorsed to a person as cashier (Sec. 42,
NIL)
(4)
where name of payee or indorsee is misspelled (Sec. 43, NIL)
(5)
indorsement in a representative capacity (Sec. 44, NIL)
(6)
presumption as to time of indorsement (Sec. 45, NIL)
(7)
place of indorsement (Sec. 46, NIL)
(8)
striking out of indorsement (Sec. 48, NIL)
(9)
transfer of an order instrument without indorsement (Sec. 49, NIL)
CASES: Metropol (Bacolod) Financing vs. Sambok Motors Co., et al., 120 SCRA
864); Gempesaw vs. CA, 218 SCRA 622
6.
HOLDERS
1. General concept of a holder
2. Holder in due course (requisites) (Sec. 52, NIL)
a. instrument complete and regular
b. taken before overdue
(1)
rule in case of installment instruments
(2)
rule in case of demand instruments (Sec. 53, NIL)
c. notice of infirmity or defect (Sec. 56 & 57, NIL; see also Sec. 54, NIL)
d. good faith
e. holder for value
3. Presumption of due course holding (Sec. 59, NIL)
4. Rights of holders in due course (Sec. 57, NIL)
5. Shelter Rule (Sec. 58, NIL)
CASES: De Ocampo vs. Gatchalian, 03 SCRA 596; Yang vs. CA, G.R. No.
138074, August 15, 2003; Mesina vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 497
LIABILITY OF PARTIES
1. Primary and secondary liability distinguished
2. Liability distinguished from warranties
3. Liability and/or warranties of parties
a. Maker (Sec. 60, NIL)
b. Drawer (Sec. Sec. 61, NIL)
(1)
relationship with drawee
(2)
relationship with collecting bank
DEFENSES
1.
2.
Real defenses:
a.
minority and ultra vires acts (Sec. 22, NIL)
b.
non-delivery of an incomplete instrument (Sec. 15, NIL)
c.
fraud in factum
d.
forgery and want of authority (Sec. 23, NIL)
(1)
forgery of makers signature
(2)
of indorsers signature
(3)
of drawers signature
(4)
forgery of bearer instruments
e.
f.
3.
material alteration (partial real defense) (Sec. 124 & 125, NIL)
extinctive prescription
Personal defenses:
a.
ante-dating or post-dating (Sec. 12, NIL)
b.
insertion of wrong date (Sec. 13, NIL)
c. filling-up blanks beyond authority (Sec. 14, NIL)
d. want of delivery of a complete instrument (Sec. 16, NIL)
e. absence or failure of consideration (Sec. 28, NIL)
f. simple fraud, duress, intimidation, force or fear, illegality
of consideration, breach of faith (Sec. 55, 56 & 57, NIL)
CASES: Philippine National Bank vs. CA, 256 SCRA 491; Associated Bank vs. CA,
January 31, 1996; Jai-Alai vs. BPI, 66 SCRA 29; Republic vs. Ebrada, July 31, 1975;
Gempesaw vs. CA, February 9, 1993; Philippine Commercial International Bank vs.
Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 446; MWSS vs. CA, 143 SCRA 20; Ilusorio vs. CA, 393
SCRA 89; Samsung Construction vs. Far East Bank, 15 August 2004; Metrobank vs.
Cabilzo, 06 December 2006; Bank of America vs. Philippine Racing Club, G.R. No.
150228, July 20, 2009; Westmont Bank, formerly Associated Bank now United
Overseas Bank Philippines v. Myrna Dela Rosa-Ramos, G.R. No. 160260, October 24,
2012; Metrobank vs. BA Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 179952, 4 December 2009
ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY
1.
2.
3.
4.
Notice of dishonor
a.
when dishonor of the instrument occurs:
(1)
dishonor by non-payment (Sec. 83, NIL)
(2)
dishonor by non-acceptance (Sec. 149, NIL)
c.
who should give notice
(1)
holder
(2)
agent
(3)
party who may be compelled to pay
d.
form of notice (Sec. 43 & 44, NIL)
e.
to whom notice is given
(1)
party secondarily liable or agent (Sec. 97, NIL)
(2)
notice where party is dead (Sec. 98, NIL)
(3)
notice to partners (Sec. 99, NIL)
(4)
notice to persons jointly liable (Sec. 100, NIL)
(5)
notice to bankrupt (Sec. 101, NIL)
f.
g.
h.
CASES: Far East Realty Investment, Inc. vs. CA, 166 SCRA 256; Wong vs. CA, February
2, 2001; International Corporate Bank vs. Sps. Gueco, February 12, 2001; Far East
Realty vs. CA, October 5, 1988; State Investment House vs. CA, 217 SCRA 32; Asia
Banking Corporation vs. Javier, 44 Phil 777; Nyco Sales Corporation vs. BA Finance
Corporation, 200 SCRA 637; Arceo, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 142641,
17 July 2006; Allied Banking vs. CA, GG Sportswear, 11 July 2006
DISCHARGE OF INSTRUMENTS
1.
2.
Concept of discharge
How instrument is discharged (Sec. 119, NIL)
a.
payment in due course (Sec. 88, NIL)
(1)
by the principal debtor (Sec. 119 [a])
(2)
by the accommodated party (Sec. 119[b])
b.
intentional cancellation
(1)
rule in case of unintentional cancellation (Sec. 123, NIL)
c.
any act that discharge simple contracts
d.
principal debtor becomes a holder
3.
CHECKS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
CASES: Bataan Cigar vs. CA, 230 SCRA 648; Stelco Marketing Corporation vs. CA,
June 17, 1992; State Investment House vs. CA, 175 SCRA 311; Papa vs. A.U. Valencia,
284 SCRA 643; Villanueva vs. Nite, G.R. No. 148211, 25 July 2006; Equitable PCI vs.
Ong, 15 September 2006; Security Bank & Trust Company vs. RCBC, G.R. Nos. 170984
& 170987, January 30, 2009