RSS

Atrium Management v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 109491. February 28, 2001]

30 Jul

FACTS

Checks were crossed checks and specially indorsed for deposit to payee’s account only, E.T. Henry. The checks were further indorsed to Atrium Management for valuable consideration. Payment was denied because of “payment stopped”.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not Atrium Management is a holder in due course.

 

RULING

From the beginning, Atrium was aware of the fact that the checks were all for deposit only to payee’s account, meaning E.T. Henry. Clearly, then, Atrium could not be considered a holder in due course. However, it does not follow as a legal proposition that simply because petitioner Atrium was not a holder in due course for having taken the instruments in question with notice that the same was for deposit only to the account of payee E.T. Henry that it was altogether precluded from recovering on the instrument.

 

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: