In the event that Mr. Lim, in fact, had sufficient legal reasons to issue the stop payment order, he may sue BPI for paying against his order. The waiver executed by Mr. Lim did not mean that it need not exercise due diligence to protect the interest of its account holder. It is not amiss to state that the drawee, unless the instrument had earlier been accepted by it, is not bound to honor payment to the holder of the check that thereby excludes it from any liability if it were to comply with the stop payment order.
The bank cannot recover the amount paid to B for the check. When the bank honored the check, it became an acceptor. As acceptor, the bank became primarily and directly liable to the payee/holder B.
The recourse of the bank should be against X and its bookkeeper who conspired to make X’s ledger show that he has sufficient funds.
NO. Gaudencio’s defenses are untenable. The cause of action of BFC was really on the contract of loan, with the checks merely serving as collateral to secure the payment of the loan. By virtue of the Deed of Assignment which he signed, Gaudencio undertook to pay for the receivables if for any reason they cannot be paid by the obligors.
YES. Pura is liable. The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. The civil aspect of every criminal case is based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. If the accused however, is not found to be criminally liable, it does not necessarily mean that she will not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of civil action. Although Pura was not an accommodation party, she cannot escape civil liability. In cases of violation of BP 22, a special law, the intent in issuing a check is immaterial. Pura issued the bouncing check. Thus, regardless of her intent, she remains civilly liable because the act or omission, the making and issuing of the subject check, from which her civil liability arises.
YES, the Supreme Court held in various decisions that a manager’s check is good as cash. A manager’s check is a check drawn by the bank against itself. It is deemed pre- accepted by the bank from the moment of issuance. The check becomes the primary obligation of the bank which issues it and constitutes its written promise to pay. By issuing it, the bank in effect commits its total resources, integrity and honor behind the check. (Tan v. CA, 239 SCRA 310; International Corporate Bank v. Gueco, 351 SCRA 516; Metrobank v. Chiok, GR No. 172652, Nov. 26, 2014)
