Title
Travel-On, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 56169
Decision Date
Jun 26, 1992
Travel-On sued Miranda over dishonored checks; SC ruled checks as evidence of debt, rejecting accommodation claims, and voided moral damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 56169)

Case Background

Travel-On is a travel agency engaged in selling airline tickets on a commission basis on behalf of various airlines. Private respondent Arturo S. Miranda entered into a revolving credit line agreement with Travel-On, purchasing tickets for airline passengers and earning commissions. Travel-On filed a suit against Miranda for the collection of six dishonored postdated checks totaling P115,000.00, claimed to have been issued by Miranda to settle his debts related to Ticket purchases. Travel-On alleged that the checks were given in partial settlement of a total of P278,201.57 owed by Miranda for airline tickets, with certain payments made and a balance remaining.

Respondent's Defense

Miranda admitted conducting transactions with Travel-On but contended that he had overpaid and was entitled to refunds. He argued the checks were issued merely for accommodation, a favor for the General Manager of Travel-On, Elita Montilla, to demonstrate financial stability to the Board of Directors. Miranda contested various ticket charges and sought reimbursement for overpayments and damages related to the wrongful attachment of his properties.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court found that Miranda's indebtedness was not adequately established and that the checks were not intended for payment but rather as an accommodation to Travel-On's General Manager. Consequently, the trial court ordered Travel-On to pay Miranda overpayments, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. This ruling was based on the procedural evidence that did not satisfactorily establish the total outstanding indebtedness claimed by Travel-On.

Appeal and Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision while adjusting the moral damages awarded to Miranda. Travel-On asserted that the postdated checks served as prima facie evidence of Miranda's liability. However, the appellate court maintained that the statements of account failed to provide an accurate picture of Miranda's financial obligations.

Supreme Court Analysis

The Supreme Court reviewed the legal weight of the issued checks in establishing Miranda's indebtedness. It articulated that under the Negotiable Instruments Law, the checks presented prima facie evidence of valuable consideration and established liability, unless Miranda could refute this presumption. The Court underscored that the burden of disproving valid consideration lay with Miranda. It found inconsistencies in the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.