Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    CALTEX Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Ma. Nikka Floan Ramirez
    The document summarizes a case involving certificates of time deposit (CTDs) that were issued by a bank and later claimed as lost by the original owner. The bank then loaned money using the CTDs as collateral without verifying they were actually lost. Another company later showed they possessed the original CTDs. The court ruled the CTDs were negotiable instruments as defined by law.

    Copyright:

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

    CALTEX Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Ma. Nikka Floan Ramirez
    3 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a case involving certificates of time deposit (CTDs) that were issued by a bank and later claimed as lost by the original owner. The bank then loaned money using the CTDs as collateral without verifying they were actually lost. Another company later showed they possessed the original CTDs. The court ruled the CTDs were negotiable instruments as defined by law.

    Original Description:

    Negotiable instrument

    Original Title

    CALTEX vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a case involving certificates of time deposit (CTDs) that were issued by a bank and later claimed as lost by the original owner. The bank then loaned money using the CTDs as collateral without verifying they were actually lost. Another company later showed they possessed the original CTDs. The court ruled the CTDs were negotiable instruments as defined by law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    3 views2 pages

    CALTEX Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Ma. Nikka Floan Ramirez
    The document summarizes a case involving certificates of time deposit (CTDs) that were issued by a bank and later claimed as lost by the original owner. The bank then loaned money using the CTDs as collateral without verifying they were actually lost. Another company later showed they possessed the original CTDs. The court ruled the CTDs were negotiable instruments as defined by law.

    Copyright:

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

    G. R. No.

    97753(212 SCRA 448) 10 August 1992

    CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner,


    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents.

    FACTS:

    This case involves a petition for review on certiorari, seeks for reversal of the decision of
    the respondent court (CA-G.R. CV No. 236151) which affirms and modify, the decision of the
    RTC; dismissing the complaint filed therein by herein petitioner against respondent bank. Thus,
    this was brought by the facts that the Security Bank and Trust Company (Security Bank), a
    commercial banking institution, issued 280 certificates of time deposit (CTDs) in favor of Angel
    dela Cruz and then deposited it to the Security Bank the total amounting to P1,120,000.00.
    Thereafter, Angel purchase fuels products at Caltex using CTDs but informed the bank Manager
    of respondent Bank that she lost all CTDs accompanied by her affidavit of loss; she then received
    a placement. Nevertheless, Angel obtained a loan from Security Bank amounting to P875,000.00
    effected with a notarized Deed of Assignment of Time Deposit. In some time, the credit manager
    from petitioner Bank verifies the CTDs declared lost by Angel, which thereafter inform the Security
    Bank that it’s on their possession. Therefore, the Security Band requested for the copy the
    following from the Caltex:
    1. a copy of the document evidencing the guarantee agreement with Mr. Angel dela Cruz;
    and
    2. the details of Mr. Angel's obligation against which Caltex proposed to apply the time
    deposits
    However, Caltex refused it, despite the demand from Security bank, which resulted to rejection
    on the demand of Caltex for payment, until such time the CTDs were set off due to matured loan.
    The petitioner filed a complaint to the RTC but then declared dismissed.

    ISSUE:
    Whether CTDs are negotiable.
    RULING:
    Yes, the SC held that the negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is determined
    from the writing, that is, from the face of the instrument itself. Provided under Section 1 Act No.
    2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, enumerates the requisites for an
    instrument to become negotiable:
    (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
    (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money;
    (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;
    (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and -check
    (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated
    therein with reasonable certainty.

    Further, the documents provide that the amounts deposited shall be repayable to the
    depositor. Nevertheless, if it was really the intention of respondent bank to pay the amount to
    Angel de la Cruz only, it could have with facility so expressed that fact in clear and categorical
    terms in the documents, instead of having the word "BEARER" stamped on the space provided
    for the name of the depositor in each CTD.

    You might also like