Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Digest - Hi Cement v. Insular

    Uploaded by

    JamesRyanAlba
    1. Insular granted ET Henry a credit facility allowing it to encash postdated checks from clients like Hi-Cement, with interest deducted. 2. 20 crossed checks from Hi-Cement to ET Henry were later dishonored, and Insular sued for payment. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that Insular was not a holder in due course because the checks were crossed and restricted for deposit only, so Insular should have made further inquiries before accepting them. As it did not, Insular acted with gross negligence and without good faith, so Hi-Cement was discharged from liability. Only ET Henry was ordered to pay Insular.

    Copyright:

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

    Digest - Hi Cement v. Insular

    Uploaded by

    JamesRyanAlba
    32 views3 pages
    1. Insular granted ET Henry a credit facility allowing it to encash postdated checks from clients like Hi-Cement, with interest deducted. 2. 20 crossed checks from Hi-Cement to ET Henry were later dishonored, and Insular sued for payment. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that Insular was not a holder in due course because the checks were crossed and restricted for deposit only, so Insular should have made further inquiries before accepting them. As it did not, Insular acted with gross negligence and without good faith, so Hi-Cement was discharged from liability. Only ET Henry was ordered to pay Insular.

    Original Title

    21. Digest - Hi Cement v. Insular

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Insular granted ET Henry a credit facility allowing it to encash postdated checks from clients like Hi-Cement, with interest deducted. 2. 20 crossed checks from Hi-Cement to ET Henry were later dishonored, and Insular sued for payment. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that Insular was not a holder in due course because the checks were crossed and restricted for deposit only, so Insular should have made further inquiries before accepting them. As it did not, Insular acted with gross negligence and without good faith, so Hi-Cement was discharged from liability. Only ET Henry was ordered to pay Insular.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    32 views3 pages

    Digest - Hi Cement v. Insular

    Uploaded by

    JamesRyanAlba
    1. Insular granted ET Henry a credit facility allowing it to encash postdated checks from clients like Hi-Cement, with interest deducted. 2. 20 crossed checks from Hi-Cement to ET Henry were later dishonored, and Insular sued for payment. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that Insular was not a holder in due course because the checks were crossed and restricted for deposit only, so Insular should have made further inquiries before accepting them. As it did not, Insular acted with gross negligence and without good faith, so Hi-Cement was discharged from liability. Only ET Henry was ordered to pay Insular.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    21. Hi Cement v.

    Insular Bank of Asia


    GR No. 132403/132419 | Sept. 28, 2007 | Corona, J.
    Alba | Holder in Good Faith

    Summary​: Hi-Cement issued postdated checks to ET Henry for their transactions. Insular granted
    ET Henry a credit facility known as "Purchase of Short Term Receivables." Through this, ET Henry
    was able to encash, with pre-deducted interest, the postdated checks of its clients. They were into
    “re-discounting” of checks. 20 checks of Hi Cement were dishonored and Insular filed a complaint
    for sum of money. The CFI and CA ruled in Insular’s favor.

    Doctrine: ​The crossing of a check should have the following effects:


    a. The check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank;
    b. The check may be negotiated only once — to one who has an account with a bank [and];
    c. The act of crossing the checks serves as warning to the holder that the check has been
    issued for a definite purpose so that he must inquire if he has received the check pursuant to
    that purpose, ​otherwise, he is not a holder in due course​.

    Good faith becomes inconsequential amidst proof of respondent's grossly negligent conduct in
    dealing with the subject checks.

    Facts​:
    1. Spouses Tan were the controlling stockholders of ET Henry (processor and distributor of
    bunker fuel). Hi-Cement, Riverside, and Kanebo were customers of ET Henry.
    - For their purchases, they issued postdated checks to ET Henry.
    2. Insular granted ET Henry a credit facility known as "Purchase of Short Term Receivables."
    - Through this, ET Henry was able to encash, with pre-deducted interest, the postdated
    checks of its clients.
    - They were into “re-discounting” of checks.
    3. For every transaction, Insular required ET Henry to execute a promissory note and a deed of
    assignment bearing the conformity of the client to the re-discounting.
    4. From 1979-81, ET was able to re-discount its clients' checks with Insular.
    - In 1981, 20 checks of Hi-Cement (which were crossed and which bore the restriction
    "deposit to payee's account only") were dishonored.
    - This also happened with Riverside and Kanebo
    5. Insular filed a complaint with the CFI for sum of money against ET, Sps. Tan, Hi Cement,
    Riverside, and Kanebo
    - In its complaint, Insular claimed that, due to the dishonor of the checks, it suffered
    actual damages equivalent to their value, exclusive of accrued and accruing interests,
    charges and penalties such as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation
    - Insular also sought to collect ET and the Tans’ other loan obligations as deficiencies
    resulting from the foreclosure of the REM on ET’s Paranaque property.
    6. Hi-Cement alleged that:
    a. Its general manager and treasurer were not authorized to issue the postdated crossed
    checks in E.T. Henry's favor
    b. The deed of assignment purportedly executed by Hi-Cement assigning them to
    respondent only bore the conformity of its treasurer and
    c. Insular was not a holder in due course as it should not have discounted them for being
    "crossed checks."
    7. ET and Sps. Tan claimed that:
    a. The drawers of the postdated checks failed to honor them due to the adverse economic
    conditions prevailing at the time respondent presented them for payment;
    b. The extra-judicial sale of the mortgaged Sucat property was void due to gross
    inadequacy of the bid price
    c. Their loans were subjected to a usurious interest rate of 21% p.a.
    8. CFI​: ordered the petitioners to pay damages represented by the value of the checks
    9. CA: ​affirmed in toto

    Issue/s:​ Whether or not Insular was a holder in due course.

    Holding:​.
    1. Sec. 191 provides that "holder" means the payee or indorsee of a bill or a note, or the person
    who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof.
    2. Sec. 52 of the NIL: A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the
    following conditions:
    a. It is complete and regular on its face;
    b. He became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it has
    previously been dishonored, if such was the fact;
    c. He took it in good faith and for value and
    d. At the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument
    or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.
    3. ITCAB: C AND D WERE NOT MET
    4. In BCCF v. CA, the SC held that the ​holder of crossed checks was not a holder in due
    course.
    - The crossing of a check should have the following effects:
    a. The check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank;
    b. The check may be negotiated only once — to one who has an account with a
    bank [and];
    c. The act of crossing the checks serves as warning to the holder that the check
    has been issued for a definite purpose so that he must inquire if he has received
    the check pursuant to that purpose, ​otherwise, he is not a holder in due
    course​.
    5. In Atrium Mgt. Corp. v. CA, SC held that Atrium was not a holder in due course.
    - Atrium was aware of the fact that the checks were all for deposit only to payee's
    account, meaning E.T. Henry.
    - Clearly, then, Atrium could not be considered a holder in due course.
    6. Insular claims that it ​acted in good faith when it accepted and discounted Hi-Cement’s
    postdated crossed checks from ET.
    - SC is not convinced.
    - Good faith ​becomes inconsequential amidst proof of respondent's grossly
    negligent conduct ​in dealing with the subject checks.
    - Insular was aware that subject checks were crossed and bore restrictions that they were
    for deposit to payee's account only; hence, they could not be further negotiated to it.
    - Insular completely disregarded a telling sign of irregularity in the re-discounting of the
    checks when the general manager did not acquiesce to it as only the treasurer's
    signature appeared on the deed of assignment (Hi-C check).
    7. As a banking institution, it behooved Insular to act with extraordinary diligence in every
    transaction.
    - The crossing of checks should put the holder on inquiry and upon him devolves the duty
    to ascertain the indorser's title to the check or the nature of his possession.
    - If it fails, the holder is declared guilty of gross negligence amounting to legal absence of
    good faith.
    8. Hi-Cement cannot be made liable for the checks. In SIHI v. IAC, SIHI re-discounted crossed
    checks and was declared not a holder in due course.
    - As a result, when it presented the checks for deposit, we deemed that its presentment
    to the drawee bank was not proper, hence, the liability did not attach to the drawer of
    the checks.
    9. The NIL does not absolutely bar a holder who is not a holder in due course from recovering on
    the checks.
    - It may recover from the party who indorsed/encashed the checks "if the latter has no
    valid excuse for refusing payment."
    - Here, there was no doubt that it was E.T. Henry that re-discounted Hi-Cement's checks
    and received their value from respondent.
    - Since E.T. Henry had no justification to refuse payment, it should pay respondent.

    Ruling: Affirmed with Modification. Only ET Henry is ordered to pay. Hi-Cement is discharged from
    liability.

    You might also like