ERNESTO T. PACHECO and VIRGINIA O. PACHECO, petitioners, vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondentsG.R. No. 126670 | December 2, 1999
FACTS:
On May 17, 1989, due to financial difficulties arising from the repeated delays in the payment of their receivables for the construction projects from the DPWH, petitioners were constrained to obtain a loan of P10,000.00 from Mrs. Vicencio. Instead of merely requiring a note of indebtedness, however, her husband Mr. Vicencio required petitioners to issue an undated check as evidence of the loan which allegedly will not be presented to the bank. Despite being informed by petitioners that their bank account no longer had any funds, Mrs. Vicencio insisted that they issue the check, which according to her was only a formality. Thus, petitioner Virginia Pacheco issued on May 17, 1989 an undated RCBC check with number CT 101756 for P10,000.00. However, she only received the amount of P9,000.00 as the 10% interest on the loan was already deducted. Mrs. Vicencio also required Virginia’s husband, herein petitioner Ernesto Pacheco, to sign the check on the same understanding that the check is not to be encashed but merely intended as an evidence of indebtedness which cannot be negotiated.
On June 14, 1989, Virginia obtained another loan of
P50,000.00 from Mrs. Vicencio. She received only P35,000.00 as the previous
loan of P10,000.00 as well as the 10% interest amounting to P5,000.00 on the
new loan were deducted by the latter. With the payment of the previous debt,
Virginia asked for the return of the first check but Mrs. Vicencio told her
that her filing clerk was absent. Despite several demands for the return of the
first check, Mrs. Vicencio told Virginia that they can no longer locate the
folder containing that check. For the new loan, she also required Virginia to
issue 3 more checks in various amounts—two checks for P20,000.00 each and the
third check for P10,000.00.
Petitioners were not amenable to these requirements, but
Mrs. Vicencio insisted that they issue the same assuring them that the checks
will not be presented to the banks but will merely serve as guarantee for the
loan since there was no promissory note required of them. Due to her dire
financial needs, Virginia issued three undated RCBC checks and again informed
Mrs. Vicencio that the checks cannot be encashed as the same were not funded.
Petitioner Ernesto also signed the three checks as required by Mrs. Vicencio on
the same conditions as the first check.
On June 20 and July 21, 1989, petitioner Virginia obtained
two more loans, one for P10,000.00 and another for P15,000.00. Again she issued
two more RCBC checks as required by Mrs. Vicencio with the same assurance that
the checks shall not be presented for payment but shall stand only as evidence
of indebtedness in lieu of the usual promissory note.
All the checks were undated at the time petitioners handed
them to Mrs. Vicencio. The six checks represent a total obligation of
P85,000.00. However, since the loan of P10,000.00 under the first check was
already paid when the amount thereof was deducted from the proceeds of the
second loan, the remaining account was only P75,000.00. Of this amount,
petitioners were able to settle and pay in cash P60,000.00 in July 1989.
When the remaining balance of P15,000.00 on the loans became
due and demandable, petitioners were not able to pay despite demands to do so.
On August 3, 1992, Mrs. Vicencio went to petitioners’ residence to persuade
Virginia to place the date on 2 checks, although said checks were undated when
given to Mrs. Vicencio. Despite being informed by petitioner Virginia that
their account with RCBC had been closed as early as August 17, 1989, Mrs.
Vicencio and her daughter insisted that she place a date on the checks
allegedly so that it will become evidence of their indebtedness. The former
reluctantly wrote the date on the checks for fear that she might not be able to
obtain future loans from Mrs. Vicencio.
Later, petitioners were surprised to receive on August 29,
1992 a demand letter from Mrs. Vicencio’s spouse informing them that the checks
when presented for payment on August 25, 1992 were dishonored due to “Account
Closed.”
Mrs. Vicencio’s filed a case of estafa against petitioners
alleging that petitioners “through fraud and false pretenses and in payment of
a diamond ring” issued checks which when presented for payment were dishonored
due to account closed.
ISSUE:
Whether the checks in question are negotiable instruments of
mere evidence of indebtedness
RULING:
A check has the character of negotiability and at the same
time it constitutes an evidence of indebtedness. By mutual agreement of the
parties, the negotiable character of a check may be waived and the instrument
may be treated simply as proof of an obligation. There cannot be deceit on the
part of the obligor, petitioners herein, because they agreed with the obligee
at the time of the issuance and postdating of the checks that the same shall
not be encashed or presented to the banks. As per assurance of the lender, the
checks are nothing but evidence of the loan or security thereof in lieu of and
for the same purpose as a promissory note. By their own covenant, therefore,
the checks became mere evidence of indebtedness. It has been ruled that a drawer
who issues a check as security or evidence of investment is not liable for
estafa. Mrs. Vicencio could not have been deceived nor defrauded by petitioners
in order to obtain the loans because she was informed that they no longer have
funds in their RCBC accounts.
Both courts below relied so much on the fact that Mrs.
Vicencio’s husband is a former Judge who knows the law. He should have known,
then, that he need not even ask the petitioners to place a date on the check,
because as holder of the check, he could have inserted the date pursuant to
Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). Moreover, as stated in
Section 14 thereof, complainant, as the person in possession of the check, has
prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein.
Besides, pursuant to Section 12 of the NIL, a negotiable
instrument is not rendered invalid by reason only that it is antedated or
postdated. Thus, the allegation of Mrs. Vicencio that the date to be placed by
Virginia was necessary so as to make the check evidence of indebtedness is
nothing but a ploy.
Comments
Post a Comment