Villanueva v. Nite b.
Villanueva does not deny knowledge of such payment neither of
G.R. No. 148211 | 496 SCRA 459 | July 25, 2006 | Corona, J. the fact that he concurred in settling the balance of P174,000.00
Petitioner: SINCERE Z. VILLANUEV on December 8, 1994.
Respondent: MARLYN P. NITE c. His actuation and pronouncement shows not only bad faith on
Sec. 189, NIL his part but also of his fraudulent intention to completely exclude
Nite from the proceedings in the court a quo. By doing what he
FACTS did, he prevented the trial court from fully appreciating the
1. Nite allegedly took out a loan of P409,000 from Villanueva. To secure the particulars of the case.
loan, respondent issued petitioner an Asian Bank Corporation (ABC) 2. No. RTC decision may be annulled for lack of jurisdiction over the person
check in the amount of P325,500 dated February 8, 1994. The date was of respondent. The pertinent provisions of the Negotiable Instruments
later changed to June 8, 1994 with the consent and concurrence of Law are enlightening:
petitioner. i. SEC. 185. Check, defined. – A check is a bill of
2. The check was dishonored due to a material alteration when petitioner exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand. Except
deposited the check on due date. On August 24, 1994, respondent, as herein otherwise provided, the provisions of this Act
through her representative Emily P. Abojada, remitted P235,000 to applicable to a bill of exchange payable on demand
petitioner as partial payment of the loan. The balance of P174, 000 was apply to a check.
due on or before December 8, 1994. ii. SEC. 189. When check operates as an assignment. – A
3. On August 24, 1994, however, petitioner filed an action for a sum of check of itself does not operate as an assignment of any
money and damages against ABC for the full amount of the dishonored part of the funds to the credit of the drawer with the bank,
check. On May 23, 1997, the RTC of Quezon City ruled in his favor. and the bank is not liable to the holder, unless and until it
When respondent went to ABC Salcedo Village Branch on June 30, 1997 accepts or certifies the check.
to withdraw money from her account, she was unable to do so because b. If a bank refuses to pay a check (notwithstanding the sufficiency
the trial court had ordered ABC to pay petitioner the value of of funds), the payee-holder cannot, in view of the cited sections,
respondent’s ABC check. sue the bank. The payee should instead sue the drawer who
4. On August 25, 1997, ABC remitted to the sheriff a manager’s check might in turn sue the bank. Section 189 is sound law based on
amounting to P325,500 drawn on respondent’s account. The check was logic and established legal principles: no privity of contract exists
duly received by petitioner on the same date. between the drawee-bank and the payee. Indeed, in this case,
5. Respondent then filed a petition in the CA seeking to annul and set aside there was no such privity of contract between ABC and petitioner.
the trial court’s decision ordering ABC to pay petitioner the value of the c. Petitioner should not have sued ABC. Contracts take effect only
ABC check. The CA ruled in favor of respondent for extrinsic fraud. between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in cases
6. Thus, petitioner filed this case. where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not
transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of
ISSUE law. None of the foregoing exceptions to the relativity of
1. W/N there was extrinsic fraud? – YES. contracts applies in this case.
2. W/N the CA erred in its decision? – No. d. The contract of loan was between petitioner and respondent. No
collection suit could prosper without respondent who was an
RULING & RATIO indispensable party.
1. Yes. We uphold the appellate court’s finding of extrinsic fraud: DISPOSITION
a. Barely 6 days after receipt of the partial payment and agreeing WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
that the balance shall be paid on or before December 8, 1994, in CA-G.R. SP No. 44971 is AFFIRMED in toto.
Villanueva filed his complaint against ABC for the full amount of
the dishonored check in the sum of P320,500.00 without
impleading Nite. The apparent haste by which Villanueva filed
his complaint and his failure to implead Nite clearly shows his
intent to prevent Nite from opposing his action.
Kool Kids 2016 | ALS 2D N-189-02 Villanueva v. Nite.pdf
AURELIO | BALLESTEROS | BATUNGBACAL | BILIRAN | CADIENTE | DONES | GALLARDO | GESTA | GUBATAN | PINTOR | SY | TOLEDO Page 1 of 1
