Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA vs. SCREENEX ALEXANDER YU

    Uploaded by

    lucky javellana
    201 views1 page
    1) In 1991, petitioner Evangelista obtained a loan from respondent Screenex and provided two undated checks as security. The checks were held by Screenex until 2004 when they were discovered and dated/deposited, over 10 years later. 2) The issue is whether the petitioner was discharged from liability on the checks since they were deposited over 10 years after being issued undated. 3) The court ruled yes, the petitioner was discharged, as a check is subject to a 10-year prescriptive period reckoned from issuance if undated, making depositing the checks over 10 years later an invalid attempt to collect.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA vs. SCREENEX ALEXANDER YU

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) In 1991, petitioner Evangelista obtained a loan from respondent Screenex and provided two undated checks as security. The checks were held by Screenex until 2004 when they were discovered and dated/deposited, over 10 years later. 2) The issue is whether the petitioner was discharged from liability on the checks since they were deposited over 10 years after being issued undated. 3) The court ruled yes, the petitioner was discharged, as a check is subject to a 10-year prescriptive period reckoned from issuance if undated, making depositing the checks over 10 years later an invalid attempt to collect.

    Copyright:

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

    BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA vs. SCREENEX ALEXANDER YU

    Uploaded by

    lucky javellana
    1) In 1991, petitioner Evangelista obtained a loan from respondent Screenex and provided two undated checks as security. The checks were held by Screenex until 2004 when they were discovered and dated/deposited, over 10 years later. 2) The issue is whether the petitioner was discharged from liability on the checks since they were deposited over 10 years after being issued undated. 3) The court ruled yes, the petitioner was discharged, as a check is subject to a 10-year prescriptive period reckoned from issuance if undated, making depositing the checks over 10 years later an invalid attempt to collect.

    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

    BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA vs.

    SCREENEX / ALEXANDER YU
    G.R. No. 211564, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 131

    FACTS:
    Sometime in 1991, petitioner Evangelista obtained a loan from
    respondent Screenex in the amount of P1.5M. As a security for
    the payment of the loan, petitioner gave two (2) open-dated checks,
    both payable to the order of respondent.
    From the time the checks were issued, they were held in
    a safe, kept with other documents and papers of the company by
    Philip Gotuaco, Sr., father-in-law of respondent Yu until Gotuaco’s death
    on November 19, 2004.
    When the checks were discovered, demand was made to the
    petitioner who refused to pay.
    Respondent thus dated and deposited said checks on December
    22, 2004. Predictably the checks were dishonored. The petitioner was
    charged with violation of BP 22 before the MTC court.

    ISSUE
    Whether petitioner has been discharged from liability on the
    check when it was deposited more than 10 years after it was
    issued undated.

    RULING
    YES, the petitioner is already discharged from liability. Section 119 of
    NIL states that a negotiable instrument is discharged by any act
    which will discharge a simple contract for the payment of money.
    A check, therefore, is subject to prescription of action upon a
    written contract which may be brought within ten years from the
    time the right of action accrues.
    Barring any extrajudicial or judicial demand that may toll the
    10 year prescriptive period and any evidence which may indicate
    another time when the obligation to pay is due, the cause of
    action based on a check is reckoned from the date indicated on
    the check. If the check is undated, however, the cause of action
    is reckoned from the date of the issuance of the check. While the
    space for the date of the check may be left blank by the issuer,
    it must, however, be filed up strictly in accordance with the authority
    given to the payee and within a reasonable time.

    You might also like