Mesina vs IAC

Marcelo A. Mesina vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 70145 November 13, 1986,  145 SCRA 497

--holder in due course

FACTS:

Jose Go purchased from Associated Bank a cashier's check for P800,000.00. Unfortunately, he left said check on the top of the desk of the bank manager when he left the bank. The bank manager entrusted the check for safekeeping to a bank official, a certain Albert Uy.  While Uy went to the men's room, the check was stolen by his visitor in the person of Alexander Lim.  Upon discovering that the check was lost, Jose Go accomplished  a "STOP PAYMENT" order.  Two days later, Associated Bank received the lost check for clearing from Prudential Bank.  After dishonoring the same check twice, Associated Bank received summons and copy of a complaint for damages of Marcelo Mesina who was in possession of the lost check and is demanding payment.  Petitioner claims that a cashier's check cannot be countermanded in the hands of a holder in due course.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner can collect on the stolen check on the ground that he is a holder in due course.

RULING:

No.  Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he is a holder in due course and for consideration or value as shown by the established facts of the case. Admittedly, petitioner became the holder of the cashier's check as endorsed by Alexander Lim who stole the check. He refused to say how and why it was passed to him. He had therefore notice of the defect of his title over the check from the start. The holder of a cashier's check who is not a holder in due course cannot enforce such check against the issuing bank which dishonors the same.

**A person who became the holder of a cashier's check as endorsed by the person who stole it and who refused to say how and why it was passed to him is not a holder in due course.