Scribd
Upload
168 views1 page

Mesina v. Iac Digest

Jose Go purchased a cashier's check from a bank and left it on the manager's desk. An employee stole the check and sold it to Alexander Lim, who then gave it to Mesina. When Go reported the check as lost, the bank refused payment on it twice when Mesina tried to cash it. Mesina sued the bank demanding payment. The court ruled that Mesina was not a holder in due course since he admitted getting the check from the thief, so he could not enforce payment from the bank. The bank was within its rights to refuse payment since it was aware the check was stolen from Go.

Uploaded by

Donvidachiye Liwag Cena
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
168 views1 page

Mesina v. Iac Digest

Jose Go purchased a cashier's check from a bank and left it on the manager's desk. An employee stole the check and sold it to Alexander Lim, who then gave it to Mesina. When Go reported the check as lost, the bank refused payment on it twice when Mesina tried to cash it. Mesina sued the bank demanding payment. The court ruled that Mesina was not a holder in due course since he admitted getting the check from the thief, so he could not enforce payment from the bank. The bank was within its rights to refuse payment since it was aware the check was stolen from Go.

Uploaded by

Donvidachiye Liwag Cena
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MESINA V.

IAC 145 SCRA 497


FACTS:
Jose Go purchased from Associate Bank a Cashiers Check, which he left on top of the managers desk when left the bank. The bank manager then had it kept for safekeeping by one of its employees. The employee was then in conference with one Alexander Lim. He left the check in his desk and upon his return, Lim and the check were gone. When Go inquired about his check, the same couldn't be found and Go was advised to request for the stoppage of payment which he did. He executed also an affidavit of loss as well as reported it to the police. The bank then received the check twice for clearing. For these two times, they dishonored the payment by saying that payment has been stopped. After the second time, a lawyer contacted it demanding payment. He refused to disclose the name of his client and threatened to sue. Later, the name of Mesina was revealed. When asked by the police on how he possessed the check, he said it was paid to him Lim. An information for theft was then filed against Lim. A case of interpleader was filed by the bank and Go moved to participate as intervenor in the complaint for damages. Mesina moved for the dismissal of the case but was denied. The trial court ruled in the interpleader case ordering the bank to replace the cashiers check in favor of Go.

HELD:
Petitioner cannot raise as arguments that a cashiers check cannot be countermanded from the hands of a holder in due course and that a cashiers check is a check drawn by the bank against itself. Petitioner failed to substantiate that he was a holder in due course. Upon questioning, he admitted that he got the check from Lim who stole the check. He refused to disclose how and why it has passed to him. It simply means that he has notice of the defect of his title over the check from the start. The holder of a cashiers check who is not a holder in due course cannot enforce payment against the issuing bank which dishonors the same. If a payee of a cashiers check obtained it from the issuing bank by fraud, or if there is some other reason why the payee is not entitled to collect the check, the bank would of course have the right to refuse payment of the check when presented by payee, since the bank was aware of the facts surrounding the loss of the check in question.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy