Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Tibajia, JR vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Kym Algarme
    This case discusses whether a cashier's check constitutes a legal tender for payment of debt. The Supreme Court ruled that a check, even a cashier's check, is not considered legal tender according to Philippine law. A creditor may validly refuse payment made partly by check and partly in cash. The Court cited previous cases that established a check is not legal tender and an obligee may refuse its receipt as payment for a debt. The petition of Tibajia Jr. to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the debt was already paid via cashier's check was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tibajia, JR vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Kym Algarme
    2K views2 pages
    This case discusses whether a cashier's check constitutes a legal tender for payment of debt. The Supreme Court ruled that a check, even a cashier's check, is not considered legal tender according to Philippine law. A creditor may validly refuse payment made partly by check and partly in cash. The Court cited previous cases that established a check is not legal tender and an obligee may refuse its receipt as payment for a debt. The petition of Tibajia Jr. to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the debt was already paid via cashier's check was denied.

    Original Description:

    Negotiable Instrument Case Digest

    Original Title

    2. Tibajia, Jr vs. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether a cashier's check constitutes a legal tender for payment of debt. The Supreme Court ruled that a check, even a cashier's check, is not considered legal tender according to Philippine law. A creditor may validly refuse payment made partly by check and partly in cash. The Court cited previous cases that established a check is not legal tender and an obligee may refuse its receipt as payment for a debt. The petition of Tibajia Jr. to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the debt was already paid via cashier's check was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Tibajia, JR vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Kym Algarme
    This case discusses whether a cashier's check constitutes a legal tender for payment of debt. The Supreme Court ruled that a check, even a cashier's check, is not considered legal tender according to Philippine law. A creditor may validly refuse payment made partly by check and partly in cash. The Court cited previous cases that established a check is not legal tender and an obligee may refuse its receipt as payment for a debt. The petition of Tibajia Jr. to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the debt was already paid via cashier's check was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT

    AY 18-19
    ATTY. POLICARPIO

    TIBAJIA, JR. vs. CA

    G.R. No. 100290 | June 04 1993 |223 SCRA 163

    SYLLABI:

    Civil Law; Republic Act No. 529; Central Bank Act; Payment; A check is not legal tender and that
    a creditor may validly refuse payment by check, whether it be a manager’s, cashier’s or personal
    check.—From the aforequoted provisions of law, it is clear that this petition must fail. In the recent
    cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs.
    Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court held that—“A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary
    check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment
    and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.” The ruling in these two (2) cases merely applies
    the statutory provisions which lay down the rule that a check is not legal tender and that a creditor may
    validly refuse payment by check, whether it be a managers check

    FACTS:

    - Edna Tan filed a suit for collection of money against the Tibajia Spouses. A writ of attachment
    was issued on two separate dates. The Deputy sheriff filed a return stating that the deposit
    made by petitioners for another case amounting to P442,750.00 had been garnished by him
    - RTC Pasig on 10 March 1988 rendered a favorable decision to Edna Tan ordering Tibajia Sps. To
    pay her 300k which was later reduced by appeal. Tan then filed a motion for execution on the
    garnished fund which were on deposit with the cashier of the RTC of Pasig
    - 14 Dec 1990 The spouses delivered to Deputy sheriff the amount of P398, 483.7 )cashier’s check
    of 262k and cash for 133k)
    - Tan refused to accept the payment made and insisted that the garnished funds be withdrawn to
    satisfy the judgement obligation
    - 15 Jan 1991 Tibajia Sps. Filed a motion to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the debt
    was already paid which was later denied since cashiers check was not a payment in legal tender.

    ISSUE:

    - WON the cashiers check as payment of the debt legal tender? NO


    - WON Tan may validly refuse the render of payment partly in check and partly in cash made thru
    aurora vito and counsel for the satisfaction of the monetary obligation of the petitioner sps.?
    YES

    HELD:

    - NO. A check even a cashiers check still not considered legal tender.
    a. Article 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency
    stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the
    currency which is legal tender in the Philippines.

    ALGARME DIGEST
    NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
    AY 18-19
    ATTY. POLICARPIO

    The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other


    mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have
    been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired.
    In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall be held in
    abeyance.”;
    b. In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 4 and
    Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,5
    this Court held that—

    “A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check, is not legal tender,


    and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment
    and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.”

    c. In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 4 and
    Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,5
    this Court held that—

    “A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check, is not legal tender,


    and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment
    and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.” Tibajia, Jr. vs. Court
    of Appeals, 223 SCRA 163, G.R. No. 100290 June 4, 1993

    In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 4 and Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos,
    Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,5 this Court held that—

    “A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and
    an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and
    may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.”

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

    ALGARME DIGEST

    You might also like