RSS

Stelco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 96160. June 17, 1992]

30 Jul

FACTS

Petitioner STELCO claimed it was a holder in due course and for value of a check that had been deposited and dishonored. STELCO came into possession of it in some way, and was able, several years after the dishonor of the check.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not STELCO may be considered a holder of the check for value.

 

RULING

NO. It is clear from the relevant circumstances that STELCO cannot be deemed a holder of the check for value. It does not meet two of the essential requisites prescribed by the statute. It did not become “the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored,” and it did not take the check “in good faith and for value”.

 

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: