Negotiable Instruments LawFor 14 Dec 2015Atty. Aquino

Read and study on:(a) Secs. 17 to 59 of Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL)(b) Rules of construction of NIL provisions(c) Signature by an agent(d) Forged negotiable instruments(e) Consideration(f) Negotiation/Indorsements(g) Rights of a Holde

Read and prepare to discuss the following cases:

1. Evangelista vs. Mercator Finance GR 148864, 21 Aug 2003 = “I promise to pay”2. Gempesaw vs. CA = delivery required for NI to be binding3. Sesbreno vs. CA = negotiation vs. assignment4. BPI vs. CA = rights of a assignee/HDC5. Francisco vs. CA = liability of an agent6. BPI vs. Casa Montessori Internationale 430 SCRA 261 (2004)= drawee bank liable to

drawer depositor re forgery7. Metropolitan Waterworks vs. CA 143 SCRA 20 = depositor/drawer bears loss for his

negligence8. PNB vs. CA 25 SCRA 693 = drawee bank not liable to collecting bank re forgery9. Prudencio vs. CA 143 SCRA 7 = HDC go after accommodation party10. Caneda vs. CA 181 SCRA 762 = accommodation party cannot raise the defense of lack of

consideration11. Salas vs. CA GR No. 76788= holder in due course12. Bayani vs. People GR 155619= failure of consideration not defense to HDC13. De Ocampo vs. Gatchalian, et al. GR No. L-15126 = bad faith as re: HDC14. State Investment House vs. IAC 217 SCRA 32 = not a holder in good faith if check is a

crossed check15. Yang vs. CA 409 SCRA 159 = crossing a check does not impair negotiability re HDC16. Consolidated Plywood vs. IFC GR No. 72593 = financing company not a Holder in Good

Faith as re buyer