Development Bank of Rizal v. Sima Wei [G.R. No. 85419. March 9, 1993]

30 Jul


Respondent Sima Wei drew crossed checks for the petitioner, but were not delivered accordingly. It came in the possession of Lee Kian Huat without petitioner-payees indorsement.



Whether or not there is a cause of action against respondent Sima Wei in as far as the crossed checks are concerned.



NO. The payee of a negotiable instrument acquires no interest with respect thereto until its delivery to him.  Without the initial delivery of the instrument from the drawer to the payee, there can be no liability on the instrument. Moreover, such delivery must be intended to give effect to the instrument. Here, non-delivery of said checks to petitioner-payee, the former did not acquire any right or interest therein and cannot therefore assert any cause of action, founded on said checks, whether against the drawer Sima Wei or against any of the other respondents.



Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: