This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-08-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court has taken judicial cognizance of the practice that a check with two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner means that it could only be deposited and not converted into cash. The effect of crossing a check, thus, relates to the mode of payment, meaning that the drawer had intended the check for deposit only by the rightful person, i.e., the payee named therein.[21] The crossing of a check is a warning that the check should be deposited only in the account of the payee. Thus, it is the duty of the collecting bank to ascertain that the check be deposited to the payee's account only.[22] | |||||
|
2009-05-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Among the different types of checks issued by a drawer is the crossed check. The Negotiable Instruments Law is silent with respect to crossed checks, although the Code of Commerce[11] makes reference to such instruments.[12] This Court has taken judicial cognizance of the practice that a check with two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner means that it could only be deposited and could not be converted into cash.[13] Thus, the effect of crossing a check relates to the mode of payment, meaning that the drawer had intended the check for deposit only by the rightful person, i.e., the payee named therein.[14] The crossing may be "special" wherein between the two parallel lines is written the name of a bank or a business institution, in which case the drawee should pay only with the intervention of that bank or company, or "general" wherein between two parallel diagonal lines are written the words "and Co." or none at all, in which case the drawee should not encash the same but merely accept the same for deposit.[15] In Bataan Cigar v. Court of Appeals,[16] we enumerated the effects of crossing a check as follows: (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 check serves as a 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.[17] | |||||
|
2007-10-18 |
|||||
| Here, petitioner banks have the obligation to ensure that the PBCom checks were deposited in accordance with the instructions stated in the checks.[4] The four PBCom checks in question had been crossed and issued "for payee's account only." This could only mean that the drawer, Filipinas Orient, intended the same for deposit only by the payee, Pipe Master. The effect of crossing a check means that the drawer had intended the check for deposit only by the rightful person, i.e., the payee named therein[5] Pipe Master. | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Having been negligent in detecting the forgery prior to clearing the check, BPI-FB should bear the loss and can't shift the blame to Buenaventura, et al. having failed to show any participation on their part in the forgery. BPI-FB fails to point any circumstance which should have put Buenaventura, et al. on inquiry as to the why and wherefore of the possession of the check by Amado Franco. Buenaventura, et al. were not privies to any transaction involving FMIC, Tevesteco or Franco. They thus had no obligation to ascertain from Franco what the nature of the latter's title to the checks was, if any, or the nature of his possession. They cannot be guilty of gross neglect amounting to legal absence of good faith, absent any showing that there was something amiss about Franco's acquisition or possession of the check, which was payable to bearer.[23] | |||||