Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 248 views

    Patrimonio vs. Gutierrez, 724 SCRA 636, G.R. No. 187769 June 4, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Ismael Nogoy
    Patrimonio and Gutierrez were business partners in Slam Dunk Corporation. Patrimonio pre-signed blank checks for business expenses and entrusted them to Gutierrez. Without Patrimonio's knowledge or consent, Gutierrez borrowed P200,000 from Marasigan using one of the blank checks, claiming the money was for Patrimonio's house construction. The check was dishonored as Patrimonio's bank account had been closed. The court ruled that Patrimonio could not be held liable as the loan contract lacked his consent, which is an essential element. Only Gutierrez was bound by the unauthorized loan agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Patrimonio vs. Gutierrez, 724 SCRA 636, G.R. No. 187769 June 4, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Ismael Nogoy
    248 views1 page
    Patrimonio and Gutierrez were business partners in Slam Dunk Corporation. Patrimonio pre-signed blank checks for business expenses and entrusted them to Gutierrez. Without Patrimonio's knowledge or consent, Gutierrez borrowed P200,000 from Marasigan using one of the blank checks, claiming the money was for Patrimonio's house construction. The check was dishonored as Patrimonio's bank account had been closed. The court ruled that Patrimonio could not be held liable as the loan contract lacked his consent, which is an essential element. Only Gutierrez was bound by the unauthorized loan agreement.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    3. Patrimonio vs. Gutierrez, 724 SCRA 636, G.R. No. 187769 June 4, 2014

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Patrimonio and Gutierrez were business partners in Slam Dunk Corporation. Patrimonio pre-signed blank checks for business expenses and entrusted them to Gutierrez. Without Patrimonio's knowledge or consent, Gutierrez borrowed P200,000 from Marasigan using one of the blank checks, claiming the money was for Patrimonio's house construction. The check was dishonored as Patrimonio's bank account had been closed. The court ruled that Patrimonio could not be held liable as the loan contract lacked his consent, which is an essential element. Only Gutierrez was bound by the unauthorized loan agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    248 views1 page

    Patrimonio vs. Gutierrez, 724 SCRA 636, G.R. No. 187769 June 4, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Ismael Nogoy
    Patrimonio and Gutierrez were business partners in Slam Dunk Corporation. Patrimonio pre-signed blank checks for business expenses and entrusted them to Gutierrez. Without Patrimonio's knowledge or consent, Gutierrez borrowed P200,000 from Marasigan using one of the blank checks, claiming the money was for Patrimonio's house construction. The check was dishonored as Patrimonio's bank account had been closed. The court ruled that Patrimonio could not be held liable as the loan contract lacked his consent, which is an essential element. Only Gutierrez was bound by the unauthorized loan agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Patrimonio vs.

    Gutierrez
    G.R. No. 187769 June 4, 2014

    Facts:

    The petitioner Patrimonio and the respondent Napoleon Gutierrez


    (Gutierrez) entered into a business venture under the name of Slam Dunk
    Corporation (Slam Dunk), a production outfit that produced mini-concerts
    and shows related to basketball. In the course of their business, the
    petitioner pre-signed several checks to answer for the expenses of Slam
    Dunk. Although signed, these checks had no payees name, date or amount.
    The blank checks were entrusted to Gutierrez with the specific instruction
    not to fill them out without previous notification to and approval by the
    petitioner. In the middle of 1993, without the petitioners knowledge and
    consent, Gutierrez went to Marasigan (the petitioners former teammate), to
    secure a loan in the amount of P200,000.00 on the excuse that the
    petitioner needed the money for the construction of his house. On May 24,
    1994, Marasigan deposited the check but it was dishonored for the reason
    ACCOUNT CLOSED. It was later revealed that petitioners account with the
    bank had been closed since May 28, 1993.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Patrimonio may be held liable for the check.

    Held:

    No. Another significant point that the lower courts failed to consider is
    that a contract of loan, like any other contract, is subject to the rules
    governing the requisites and validity of contracts in general. Article 1318 of
    the Civil Code enumerates the essential requisites for a valid contract,
    namely: 1. consent of the contracting parties; 2. object certain which is the
    subject matter of the contract; and 3. cause of the obligation which is
    established. In this case, the petitioner denied liability on the ground that
    the contract lacked the essential element of consent. We agree with the
    petitioner. As we explained above, Gutierrez did not have the petitioners
    written/verbal authority to enter into a contract of loan. While there may be
    a meeting of the minds between Gutierrez and Marasigan, such agreement
    cannot bind the petitioner whose consent was not obtained and who was not
    privy to the loan agreement. Hence, only Gutierrez is bound by the contract
    of loan.

    You might also like