Ang tek lian petitioner v the

CA affirmed the verdict of CFI.

Ang tek lian petitioner v the

Hope it helps, cheers! Where a check is in the ordinary form, and is payable to bearer, so that no indorsement is required, a bank, to which it is presented for payment, need not have the holder identified, and is not negligent in falling to do so. Que los obreros de una empresa fabril, que han celebrado contrato, ya individual ya colectivamente, con ell, sin tiempo fijo, y que se han visto obligados a cesar en sus tarbajos por haberse declarando paro forzoso en la fabrica en la cual tarbajan, dejan de ser empleados u obreros de la misma; 3. The bank therefore, requires for its protection that the indorsement of the draweror some other persons known to itbe obtained. Article , paragraph d , subsection 2 of the Revised Penal Code, punishes swindling committed "By post dating a check, or issuing such check in payment of an obligation the offender knowing that at the time he had no funds in the bank, or the funds deposited by him in the bank were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check, and without informing the payee of such circumstances". The drawee bank need not obtain any indorsement of the check, but may pay it to the person presenting it without any indorsement. Although a bank is entitled to pay the amount of a bearer check without further inquiry, it is entirely reasonable for the bank to insist that holder give satisfactory proof of his identity. In this case, the bank dishonored the check not because the drawer's endorsement was lacking but because of insufficient funds. But if the bank is satisfied to the identity of the bearer who tenders the check, it will pay the instrument without asking for endorsement.

In this connection, it must be stated that, as explained in People v. If the bank is not sure of the identity or financial insolvency of the bearer and the check is payable to bearer, it has the right to demand for its protection, the endorsement of the drawer or some other person known to it.

pnb vs manila oil refining co case digest

Que un patrono o sociedad que ha celebrado un contrato colectivo de trabajo con sus osbreros sin tiempo fijo de duracion y sin ser para una obra determiminada y que se niega a readmitir a dichos obreros que cesaron como consecuencia de un paro forzoso, no es culpable de practica injusta in incurre en la It is argued, however, that as the check had been made payable to "cash" and had not been endorsed by Ang Tek Lian, the defendant is not guilty of the offense charged.

CIR Research Paper Bacal vs.

Dela victoria vs burgos

It is argued that the check, being payable to cash, wasnt indorsed by the defendant, and thus, isnt guilty of the crime charged. The bank therefore, requires for its protection that the indorsement of the draweror some other persons known to itbe obtained. In this connection, it must be stated that, as explained in People v. De Beck Plate Glass Co. On Nov. When, therefore, he the offended party accepted the check Exhibit A from the appellant, he did so with full knowledge that it would be dishonored upon presentment. CA affirmed the verdict of CFI. Paton's Digest, Vol. In this connection, it must be stated that, as explained in People vs. He delivered it to Lee Hua Hong in exchange for money which the latter handed in act.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict. The next business day, the check was presented by Lee Hua Hong to the drawee bank for payment, but it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, the balance of the deposit of Ang Tek Lian on both dates being P only.

The bank may therefore require, for its protection, that the indorsement of the drawer — or of some other person known to it — be obtained.

Ang tek lian vs ca 87 phil 383

The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict. Wherefore, there being no question as to the correctness of the penalty imposed on the appellant, the writ of certiorari is denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed, with costs. When, therefore, he the offended party accepted the check Exhibit A from the appellant, he did so with full knowledge that it would be dishonored upon presentment. Where a check is made payable to the order of cash, the word cash does not purport to be the name of any person, and hence the instrument is payable to bearer. In this connection, it must be stated that, as explained in People vs. A check payable to bearer is authority for payment to the holder. September 25,

De Beck Plate Glass Co. It appears that, knowing he had no funds therefor, Ang Tek Lian drew on Saturday, November 16,the check Exhibit A upon the China Banking Corporation for the sum of P4, payable to the order of "cash.

Fernandez 59 Phil. Upon presentment of the check, it was dishonored for having insufficient funds.

pacheco vs ca
Rated 5/10 based on 51 review
Download
Ang Tek Lian v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L September 25, ]