Case Digest (G.R. No. 170912)
Facts:
Robert Dino v. Maria Luisa Judal-Loot, G.R. No. 170912, April 19, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Robert Dino (drawer) challenged the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the Regional Trial Court's judgment that respondents Maria Luisa Judal-Loot joined by her husband Vicente Loot were holders in due course of Metrobank Check No. C‑MA‑142119406‑CA and ordering petitioner (and indorser Fe Lobitana) to pay the face value of the check; the Court of Appeals deleted awards of interest, moral damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses.In December 1992 petitioner was induced by a syndicate purporting to secure a P3,000,000 loan by a real estate instrument; petitioner issued three Metrobank checks totaling P3,000,000, including Metrobank Check No. C‑MA‑142119406‑CA (postdated 13 February 1993, amount P1,000,000) payable to Vivencia Ompok Consing and/or Fe Lobitana. Upon discovering the scheme and that the purported security covered government lands, petitioner instructed Metrobank to stop payment; only Check No. C‑MA‑142119406‑CA was stopped while the other two were already encashed.
Fe Lobitana negotiated and indorsed that check to respondents in exchange for P948,000, which respondents used to borrow from Metrobank. Before accepting the check respondents asked Metrobank, their depository, if the check was sufficiently funded and were assured it was; when respondents deposited it the drawee bank dishonored it for reason "PAYMENT STOPPED."
Respondents sued petitioner and Lobitana in the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. MAN‑1843), alleging they were holders in due course and for value. The trial court (7th Judicial Region, Branch 56, Mandaue City) ruled for respondents in a 14 March 1996 decision, ordering defendants to pay P1,000,000 (face value), accrued interest, moral damages (P100,000), attorney’s fees (P200,000), litigation expenses (P10,000) and costs. Only petitioner appealed.
The Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 57994, by its 16 August 2005 decision (penned by Lanzanas, J., with Magpale and Villon, JJ., concurring), affirmed the trial court’s finding that respondents were holders in due course but modified by deleting interest, moral damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, reasoning petitioner acted in good faith in ordering stoppage of pay...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that respondents were holders in due course of Metrobank Check No. C‑MA‑142119406‑CA, despite the fact that the instrument was a crossed check?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on the ground that the argument that the check was crossed was raised fo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)