Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 121 views

    07 Republic Vs PNB

    Uploaded by

    Jimenez Lorenz
    The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for escheat of certain unclaimed bank deposits that had been inactive for 10 years or more from various banks. The trial court dismissed the complaint regarding telegraphic transfer payments, finding they were different than cashier's or manager's checks that did fall under the relevant law. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, ruling that demand drafts involved had not been presented for acceptance or payment so the bank never became a debtor to the payee and the drafts could not be considered credits under the law. The Court found demand drafts were different from cashier's checks, which are a primary obligation of the issuing bank, and determined demand drafts did not fall under the

    Copyright:

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

    07 Republic Vs PNB

    Uploaded by

    Jimenez Lorenz
    121 views1 page
    The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for escheat of certain unclaimed bank deposits that had been inactive for 10 years or more from various banks. The trial court dismissed the complaint regarding telegraphic transfer payments, finding they were different than cashier's or manager's checks that did fall under the relevant law. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, ruling that demand drafts involved had not been presented for acceptance or payment so the bank never became a debtor to the payee and the drafts could not be considered credits under the law. The Court found demand drafts were different from cashier's checks, which are a primary obligation of the issuing bank, and determined demand drafts did not fall under the

    Original Title

    07 Republic vs PNB

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for escheat of certain unclaimed bank deposits that had been inactive for 10 years or more from various banks. The trial court dismissed the complaint regarding telegraphic transfer payments, finding they were different than cashier's or manager's checks that did fall under the relevant law. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, ruling that demand drafts involved had not been presented for acceptance or payment so the bank never became a debtor to the payee and the drafts could not be considered credits under the law. The Court found demand drafts were different from cashier's checks, which are a primary obligation of the issuing bank, and determined demand drafts did not fall under the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    121 views1 page

    07 Republic Vs PNB

    Uploaded by

    Jimenez Lorenz
    The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for escheat of certain unclaimed bank deposits that had been inactive for 10 years or more from various banks. The trial court dismissed the complaint regarding telegraphic transfer payments, finding they were different than cashier's or manager's checks that did fall under the relevant law. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, ruling that demand drafts involved had not been presented for acceptance or payment so the bank never became a debtor to the payee and the drafts could not be considered credits under the law. The Court found demand drafts were different from cashier's checks, which are a primary obligation of the issuing bank, and determined demand drafts did not fall under the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-16106            December 30, 1961

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,


    vs.
    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., defendants,
    THE FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, defendant-appellee.

    FACTS:
    The Republic of the Philippines filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint for
    escheat of certain unclaimed bank deposits. It is alleged that pursuant to Section 2 of said Act
    defendant banks forwarded to the Treasurer of the Philippines a statement under oath of their
    respective managing officials of all the credits and deposits held by them in favor of persons known
    to be dead or who have not made further deposits or withdrawals during the period of 10 years or
    more. Wherefore, it is prayed that said credits and deposits be escheated to the Republic of the
    Philippines by ordering defendant banks to deposit them to its credit with the Treasurer of the
    Philippines.

    After hearing the court a quo rendered judgment holding that cashier's is or manager's checks and
    demand drafts as those which defendant wants excluded from the complaint come within the
    purview of Act No. 3936, but not the telegraphic transfer payment which orders are of different
    category. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed with regard to the latter.

    It would appear that the term "unclaimed balances" that are subject to escheat include credits or
    deposits money, or other evidence of indebtedness of any kind with banks, in favor of any person
    unheard from for a period of 10 years or more. And as correctly stated by the trial court, the term
    "credit" in its usual meaning is a sum credited on the books of a company to a person who appears
    to be entitled to it.

    ISSUE: Whether demand draft and telegraphic orders come within the meaning of the term "credits"
    or "deposits" employed in the law?

    HELD:

    No. Since it is admitted that the demand drafts herein involved have not been presented either for
    acceptance or for payment, the inevitable consequence is that the appellee bank never had any
    chance of accepting or rejecting them. Verily, appellee bank never became a debtor of the payee
    concerned and as such the aforesaid drafts cannot be considered as credits subject to escheat
    within the meaning of the law.

    But a demand draft is very different from a cashier's or manager's cheek, contrary to appellant's
    pretense, for it has been held that the latter is a primary obligation of the bank which issues it and
    constitutes its written promise to pay upon demand.

    A cashier's check issued by a bank, however, is not an ordinary draft. The latter is a bill of exchange
    payable demand. It is an order upon a third party purporting to drawn upon a deposit of funds.

    A demand draft is not therefore of the same category as a cashier's check which should come within
    the purview of the law.

    You might also like