Title
Kauffman vs. Philippine National Bank
Case
G.R. No. 16454
Decision Date
Sep 29, 1921
A beneficiary of a telegraphic transfer sued PNB for withholding payment; the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, upholding his right to enforce the stipulation despite lack of privity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 214864)

Petitioner

George A. Kauffman, creditor and beneficiary of the cable transfer.

Respondent

Philippine National Bank, seller of the cable transfer and drawee bank.

Key Dates

• February 5, 1918: Company declares ₱100,000 dividend; ₱98,000 credited to Kauffman.
• October 9, 1918: Wicks procures $45,000 transfer; PNB issues official receipt and sends payment instructions to New York.
• October 11, 1918: PNB directs its New York agency to withhold payment.
• October 15, 1918: Kauffman demands payment in New York; payment refused.
• September 29, 1921: Supreme Court renders decision.

Applicable Law

Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 1257(2) (stipulation in favor of a third person). The Negotiable Instruments Law is inapplicable.

Factual Background

PNB sold a cable transfer for $45,000 to Philippine Fiber and Produce Company, accepting a check for ₱90,355.50 drawn by Treasurer Wicks. An official receipt memorialized PNB’s obligation to pay Kauffman in New York. PNB’s Manila headquarters initially dispatched a cable instructing payment, then—upon its New York agent’s advice to protect the company’s credit—sent a second cable directing withholding of funds. When Kauffman presented the payment order in New York on October 15, 1918, PNB’s agent refused to honor it.

Procedural History

Kauffman sued in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the $45,000, plus interest and costs. The trial court ruled for Kauffman. PNB appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issue

Whether a third-party beneficiary without direct privity can enforce a contractual obligation of PNB to pay the cable transfer.

Court’s Analysis

• The transfer agreement created a contractual promise by PNB to pay Kauffman.
• The Negotiable Instruments Law did not apply because the cable order was neither “to order” nor delivered as a negotiable instrument.
• Under Civil Code Article 1257(2), a third person benefiting from a contract may enforce it upon notifying acceptance before revocation.
• T

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.