TIBAJIA vs.
CA and EDEN TAN therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment in any coin
G.R. No. 100290 June 4, 1993 or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts
Section 63 of Republic Act No. 265, as amended (Central Bank Act) which provides:
FACTS
A suit for collection of a sum of money filed by Eden Tan against the Tibajia Sec. 63. Legal character Checks representing deposit money do not have legal
spouses tender power and their acceptance in the payment of debts, both public and private,
A writ of attachment was issued by the trial court is at the option of the creditor: Provided, however, that a check which has been
The Deputy Sheriff filed a return stating that a deposit made by the Tibajia spouses cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to
had been garnished by him. the creditor of cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account.
Tibajia spouses delivered to Deputy Sheriff Eduardo Bolima the total money In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 4 and Roman
judgment in check Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 5 this Court held
Private respondent refused to accept the payment made by the Tibajia spouses and that
instead insisted that the garnished funds deposited be withdrawn to satisfy the
judgment obligation. A check, whether a manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an
Petitioners filed a motion to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the judgment offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be
debt had already been paid refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.
Motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that payment in cashier's check is
not payment in legal tender and that payment was made by a third party other than
the defendant
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE BPI CASHIER'S CHECK TENDERED BY PETITIONERS
FOR PAYMENT OF THE JUDGMENT DEBT, IS "LEGAL TENDER"
RULING
The provisions of law applicable to the case at bar are the following:
a. Article 1249 of the Civil Code which provides:
Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated,
and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal
tender in the Philippines.
The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other
mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been
cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired.
In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall be held in
abeyance.;
b. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 529, as amended, which provides:
Sec. 1. Every provision contained in, or made with respect to, any obligation which
purports to give the obligee the right to require payment in gold or in any particular
kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency or in an amount of money of
the Philippines measured thereby, shall be as it is hereby declared against public
policy null and void, and of no effect, and no such provision shall be contained in, or
made with respect to, any obligation thereafter incurred. Every obligation heretofore
and hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision as to payment is contained
INCIONG V. CA TIBAJIA V. CA
257 SCRA 578 223 SCRA 163
FACTS:
FACTS:
A promissory note was issued by petitioner together with 2 others jointly
and severally, to make them liable to PBC. Thereafter was a default on the Tan filed a suit against spouses Tibaija. Decision was rendered in her
payment of the note. PBC proceeded against Inciong and in the action filed favor. She then filed a motion of execution for the amount deposited and the
by the bank, the court decided in its favor. cashier of RTC was garnished for the amount deposited therein by the
spouses. This prompted the spouses to deliver cash and check but Ta
HELD: n refused to accept.
Where the promissory note expressly states that the three signatures
therein are jointly and severally liable, any one or some or all of them may HELD:
be proceeded against for the entire obligationthe choice is left to the
solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. A check is not valid legal tender and the creditor may validly refuse
payment by check.
SESBRENO V. CA
222 SCRA 466 ROMAN CATHOLIC OF MALOLOS V. IAC
191 SCRA 411
FACTS:
Petitioner made a placement with Philfinance. The latter delivered to him FACTS:
documents, some of which was a promissory note from Delta Motors and a
post-dated check. The post-dated checks were dishonored. This prompted Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land. It then entered into a
petitioner to ask for the promissory note from DMC and it was discovered contract of lease agreement with Robes-Fransisco Realty for the parcel of
that the note issued by DMC was marked as non-negotiable. As Sesbreno land. The agreement was that there would be downpayment plus
failed to recover his money, he filed case against DMC and Philfinance. installments with interest. Robes-Fransisco was then in default. Knowing
that it was in its payment of the installments, it requested for the
restructuring of the installment payments but was denied. It then aske
d for grace period to pay the same and tendered a check thereafter. Such was
HELD: refused and the contract was cancelled.
The non-negotiability of the instrument doesnt mean that it is non-
assignable or transferable. It may still be assigned or transferred in whole or
in part, even without the consent of the promissory note, since consent is not
HELD:
necessary for the validity of the assignment.
A check whether a managers check or ordinary check is not legal tender
In assignment, the assignee is merely placed in the position of the and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not valid tender of payment
assignors and acquires the instrument subject to all the defenses that and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. As this is the case,
might have been set up against the original payee. the subsequent consignation of the check didn't operate to discharge
Robes-Fransisco from its obligation to petitioner.
ABUBAKAR V. AUDITOR GENERAL
81 PHIL. 359
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE V. ARUEGO
102 SCRA 530
FACTS:
The auditor general refuses to authorize the payment of the treasury FACTS:
warrant issued in the name of Placido Urbanes, now in the hands of
Aruego, on behalf of World Current Events, entered into a Credit
Benjamin Abubakar. The auditor
general refuses to do so because, first, the money available for Agreement with PBCom, for the publication of the companys periodic
redemption of treasury warrants was appropriated by law and the subject als. At every printing endeavor by the printing press, a bill of exchang
warrant doesnt fall within the purview of the law; second, one of the e is drawn against PBCom. The instruments are signed by Aruego, without
requirements was not complied with, which is it must be sworn that any indication that he is an agent of World Current Events. When he was
the holders of the warrant covering payment or replenishment being held liable by PBCom, he averred that he only signed the instrument in
of cash advances for official expenditures received them in payment of the capacity of agent of the company.
definite government obligations.
HELD: HELD:
Petitioner holds that he is a holder in good faith and for value of a An inspection of the drafts accepted by the defendant would show nowhere
negotiable instrument and is entitled to the rights and privileges of a holder in that he has disclosed that he was signing in representation of the Philippine
due course, free from defenses. But this treasury warrant is within the Education Foundation Company. He merely signed his name. For failure to
scope of the Negotiable disclose his principal, Aruego was personally liable for the drafts he
Instruments Law. For one thing, the document bearing on its face the accepted.
words payable from the appropriation for food administration, is actually
an order for payment out of a particular fund, and is not unconditional, and
doesnt fulfill one of the essential requirements of a negotiable instrument.
