Philippine
Education Co. vs. Soriano
L-22405 June 30, 1971
Dizon,
J.:
Facts:
Enrique Montinola sought to purchase
from Manila Post Office ten money orders of 200php each payable to E. P.
Montinola. Montinola offered to pay with the money orders with a private check.
Private check were not generally accepted in payment of money orders, the
teller advised him to see the Chief of the Money Order Division, but instead of
doing so, Montinola managed to leave the building without the knowledge of the
teller. Upon the disappearance of the unpaid money order, a message was sent to
instruct all banks that it must not pay for the money order stolen upon
presentment. The Bank of America received a copy of said notice. However, The
Bank of America received the money order and deposited it to the appellant’s
account upon clearance. Mauricio Soriano, Chief of the Money Order Division
notified the Bank of America that the money order deposited had been found to
have been irregularly issued and that, the amount it represented had been
deducted from the bank’s clearing account. The Bank of America debited
appellant’s account with the same account and give notice by mean of debit
memo.
Issue:
Whether or not the postal money
order in question is a negotiable instrument
Held:
No. It is not disputed that the
Philippine postal statutes were patterned after similar statutes in force in
United States. The Weight of authority in the United States is that postal
money orders are not negotiable instruments, the reason being that in
establishing and operating a postal money order system, the government is not
engaged in commercial transactions but merely exercises a governmental power
for the public benefit. Moreover, some of the restrictions imposed upon money
orders by postal laws and regulations are inconsistent with the character of
negotiable instruments. For instance, such laws and regulations usually provide
for not more than one endorsement; payment of money orders may be withheld
under a variety of circumstances.
Read full text here: PECO vs. Soriano
No comments:
Post a Comment