Case Digest (G.R. No. 211564)
Facts:
Benjamin Evangelista v. Screenex, Inc., G.R. No. 211564, November 20, 2017, Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Benjamin Evangelista obtained a loan from respondent Screenex, Inc. (represented by Alexander G. Yu). According to the Court of Appeals' summary, Screenex issued two checks to Evangelista in 1991 as part of the loan transaction, and Evangelista delivered two open-dated checks as security. The security checks were kept in safekeeping by Philip Gotuaco, Sr. (respondent Yu’s father‑in‑law) until Gotuaco’s death on 19 November 2004. There were alleged personal demands and a demand letter by the family lawyer prior to any deposit or presentment.On 25 August 2005 Evangelista was criminally charged for two counts under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, Branch 61, for issuing two checks (UCPB Nos. AGR 616656 and AGR 616657, dated 12-22-04) which were dishonored. At arraignment Evangelista pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. The MeTC acquitted him criminally for failure of the prosecution to prove knowledge of insufficiency of funds (the third element under BP 22), but found him civilly liable and ordered payment of P1,500,000 plus 12% interest from filing, and costs.
Evangelista appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which treated the checks as evidence of indebtedness, held that Evangelista failed to prove payment, rejected prescription as unestablished, and affirmed the MeTC decision in a 18 December 2008 Decision; the RTC denied reconsideration on 19 August 2009. Evangelista then sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) via petition for review; the CA denied the petition and affirmed the RTC by Decision dated 1 October 2013 and a Resolution of 27 February 2014, holding among others that the reckoning for prescription began on issuance/return and that the checks, being undated, were not materially altered when dated later.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the defense of prescription, although first invoked on appeal, be considered so that the court may dismiss the action when the pleadings and evidence show the claim is time‑barred?
- Is the action to enforce the civil obligation on the two undated checks barred by prescription?
- Did the creditor’s prolonged failure to present or cash the checks operate to discharge Evangelista’s underlying obligation such ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)