RSS

Mesina v. Intermediate Appellate Court [G.R. No. 70145. November 13, 1986]

30 Jul

FACTS

Petitioner became the holder of the cashier’s check as endorsed by Alexander Lim who stole the check. He refused to say how and why it was passed to him.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner is a holder in due course.

 

RULING

NO. Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he is a holder in due course and for consideration or value as shown by the established facts of the case. He had therefore notice of the defect of his title over the check from the start. The holder of a cashier’s check who is not a holder in due course cannot enforce such check against the issuing bank which dishonors the same.

 

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: