Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Bognot Vs RPI (Nego)

    Uploaded by

    Jani Misterio
    Leonardo Bognot obtained a loan from RRI Lending Corporation that was renewed several times by paying fees and providing post-dated checks as security. However, Rolando's wife obtained loan documents from RRI under the pretense of getting signatures but never returned with the signed documents or a new check. RRI then demanded payment from Leonardo for the outstanding loan. The court ruled that (1) a check is not considered legal tender and does not constitute payment until cashed, and (2) under Article 1249, promissory notes and other commercial documents only discharge an obligation once they have been cashed or become impaired due to the creditor's fault.

    Copyright:

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

    Bognot Vs RPI (Nego)

    Uploaded by

    Jani Misterio
    94 views1 page
    Leonardo Bognot obtained a loan from RRI Lending Corporation that was renewed several times by paying fees and providing post-dated checks as security. However, Rolando's wife obtained loan documents from RRI under the pretense of getting signatures but never returned with the signed documents or a new check. RRI then demanded payment from Leonardo for the outstanding loan. The court ruled that (1) a check is not considered legal tender and does not constitute payment until cashed, and (2) under Article 1249, promissory notes and other commercial documents only discharge an obligation once they have been cashed or become impaired due to the creditor's fault.

    Original Description:

    Nego

    Original Title

    Bognot vs RPI (nego)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Leonardo Bognot obtained a loan from RRI Lending Corporation that was renewed several times by paying fees and providing post-dated checks as security. However, Rolando's wife obtained loan documents from RRI under the pretense of getting signatures but never returned with the signed documents or a new check. RRI then demanded payment from Leonardo for the outstanding loan. The court ruled that (1) a check is not considered legal tender and does not constitute payment until cashed, and (2) under Article 1249, promissory notes and other commercial documents only discharge an obligation once they have been cashed or become impaired due to the creditor's fault.

    Copyright:

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

    Bognot Vs RPI (Nego)

    Uploaded by

    Jani Misterio
    Leonardo Bognot obtained a loan from RRI Lending Corporation that was renewed several times by paying fees and providing post-dated checks as security. However, Rolando's wife obtained loan documents from RRI under the pretense of getting signatures but never returned with the signed documents or a new check. RRI then demanded payment from Leonardo for the outstanding loan. The court ruled that (1) a check is not considered legal tender and does not constitute payment until cashed, and (2) under Article 1249, promissory notes and other commercial documents only discharge an obligation once they have been cashed or become impaired due to the creditor's fault.

    Copyright:

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

    8. Leonardo Bognot vs.

    RPI Lending Corporation represented by its General Manager, Dario  J.


    Bernandez, G.R. No. 180144, September 24, 2014, Second Division, J. Brion

    Facts: RRI Lending Corporation (respondent) is an entity engaged in the business of lending
    money to its borrowers within Metro Manila. It is duly represented by its General Manager, Mr.
    Dario J. Bernardez. Leonardo Bognot and his younger brother applied for and obtained a loan
    from the respondent evidenced by a promissory note and was secured by a post-dated check.

    Leonardo renewed the loan several times on a monthly basis by paying the renewal fee, issuing
    a new post-dated check as security, and executing/ renewing the promissory note previously
    issued. RRI cancelled and returned to the petitioner the post-dated checks issued prior to their
    renewal.
     
    Several days before the loan’s maturity, Rolando’s wife went to the respondent’s office and
    applied for another renewal of the loan. She issued in favor of the respondent Promissory Note
    No. 97-051, and International Bank Exchange (IBE) Check No. 00012522 in the amount of
    ₱54,600.00 as renewal fee. On the excuse that she needs to bring home the loan documents for
    the Bognot siblings’ signatures and replacement, she asked the clerk to release to her the
    promissory note, the disclosure statement, and the check dated July 30, 1997; however, she
    never returned these documents nor issued a new post-dated check. Consequently, the
    respondent sent the petitioner follow-up letters demanding payment of the loan, plus interest
    and penalty charges. These demands went unheeded.
     
    Issue:  1.   Is a check a legal tender? Can it constitute a valid tender of payment?
    2.   What is the effect of Article 1249, paragraph 2? 
     
    Ruling:  1.  No. A check is not legal tender and, therefore, cannot constitute a valid tender of
    payment. Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the
    delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. Mere delivery of checks
    does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished and
    remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized.
    2. Article 1249, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code provides that 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.
     

    You might also like