PECO vs. Soriano 39 SCRA 587
FACTS:
On April 18, 1958 Enrique Montinola sought to purchase from
the Manila Post Office 10 money orders of P200.00 each payable to E. P.
Montinola. Montinola offered to pay for the money orders with a private check.
As private checks were not generally accepted in payment of money orders, the
teller advised him to see the Chief of the Money Order Division, but instead of
doing so, Montinola managed to leave the building with his own check and the 10
money orders without the knowledge of the teller.
Upon discovery of the disappearance of the unpaid money
orders, an urgent message was sent to all postmasters, and the following day
notice was likewise served upon all banks. Instructing them not to pay anyone
of the money orders aforesaid if presented for payment. The Bank of America
received a copy of said notice three days later.
One of these money orders was received by PECO as part of
its sales receipts which was then deposited with the Bank of America, and one
day thereafter the latter cleared it with the Bureau of Posts and received from
the latter its face value of P200.00.
On September 27, 1961, Mauricio A. Soriano, Chief of the
Money Order Division of the Manila Post Office, notified the Bank of America
that the money order attached to his letter had been found to have been
irregularly issued and that, in view thereof, the amount it represented had
been deducted from the bank's clearing account. The Bank of America debited
appellant's account with the same amount and gave it advice thereof by means of
a debit memo.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the postal money order in question is a
negotiable instrument and thus it is not affected by the letter dated October
26,1948 signed by the Director of Posts and addressed to all banks with a
clearing account with the Post Office, and that money orders. once issued.
create a contractual relationship of debtor and creditor, respectively, between
the government, on the one hand, and the remitters payees or endorsees, on the
other
RULING:
Postal money orders are not negotiable instruments. The
reason behind this rule being that, in establishing and operating a postal
money order system, the government is not engaging in commercial transactions
but merely exercises a governmental power for the public benefit.
It is to be noted in this connection that some of the
restrictions imposed upon money orders by postal laws and regulations are
inconsistent with the character of negotiable instruments. For instance, such
laws and regulations usually provide for not more than one endorsement; payment
of money orders may be withheld under a variety of circumstances.
Of particular application to the postal money order in
question are the conditions laid down in the letter of the Director to the Bank
of America for the redemption of postal money orders received by it from its
depositors, Among others, the condition is imposed that "in cases of
adverse claim, the money order or money orders involved will be returned to you
(the bank) and the corresponding amount will have to be refunded to the Postmaster,
Manila, who reserves the right to deduct the value thereof from any amount due
you if such step is deemed necessary." The conditions thus imposed in
order to enable the bank to continue enjoying the facilities theretofore
enjoyed by its depositors, were accepted by the Bank of America. The latter is
therefore bound by them. That it is so is clearly inferred from the fact that,
upon receiving advice that the amount represented by the money order in question
had been deducted from its clearing account with the Manila Post Office, it did
not file any protest against such action.
Comments
Post a Comment