This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-10-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Pacheco v. Court of Appeals,[46] this Court has expressly recognized that a check "constitutes an evidence of indebtedness"[47] and is a veritable "proof of an obligation."[48] Hence, it can be used "in lieu of and for the same purpose as a promissory note."[49] In fact, in the seminal case of Lozano v. Martinez,[50] We pointed out that a check functions more than a promissory note since it not only contains an undertaking to pay an amount of money but is an "order addressed to a bank and partakes of a representation that the drawer has funds on deposit against which the check is drawn, sufficient to ensure payment upon its presentation to the bank."[51] This Court reiterated this rule in the relatively recent Lim v. Mindanao Wines and Liquour Galleria stating that "[a] check, the entries of which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction."[52] This very same principle underpins Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL): Section 24. Presumption of consideration. Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party for value. | |||||