Scribd
Upload
427 views1 page

Metropolitan Bank Vs Wilfred Chiok

1) Wilfred Chiok had an agreement to purchase US dollars from Gonzalo Nuguid at prevailing exchange rates, paying either by cash, manager's check, or cashier's check. 2) Chiok filed a complaint seeking rescission of the contract with Nuguid and to cancel checks issued to Nuguid after Nuguid failed to deliver the agreed amount of dollars. 3) The court ruled that while Chiok could seek rescission against Nuguid for failure to perform, he had no grounds to rescind the contracts with the banks that cashed the manager's and cashier's checks, as they were not parties to the original contract between Chiok and Nuguid.

Uploaded by

Mosarah Alt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
427 views1 page

Metropolitan Bank Vs Wilfred Chiok

1) Wilfred Chiok had an agreement to purchase US dollars from Gonzalo Nuguid at prevailing exchange rates, paying either by cash, manager's check, or cashier's check. 2) Chiok filed a complaint seeking rescission of the contract with Nuguid and to cancel checks issued to Nuguid after Nuguid failed to deliver the agreed amount of dollars. 3) The court ruled that while Chiok could seek rescission against Nuguid for failure to perform, he had no grounds to rescind the contracts with the banks that cashed the manager's and cashier's checks, as they were not parties to the original contract between Chiok and Nuguid.

Uploaded by

Mosarah Alt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TOPICS: Article 1131 (Principle of relativity of contracts) & Article 1191 (Right of Rescission)

FACTS:
Wilfred N. Chiok had been engaged in dollar trading for several years. He usually buys dollars
from Gonzalo B. Nuguid at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of the sale. Chiok pays
Nuguid either in cash or manager’s check, to be picked up by the latter or deposited in the
latter’s bank account. Nuguid delivers the dollars either on the same day or on a later date as
may be agreed upon between them, up to a week later. For this purpose, Chiok maintained
accounts with Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company and Global Business Bank, Inc. Chiok
likewise entered into a Bills Purchase Line Agreement (BPLA) with Global Bank. Under the
BPLA, checks drawn in favor of, or negotiated to, Chiok may be purchased by Global Bank.
Upon such purchase, Chiok receives a discounted cash equivalent of the amount of the check
earlier than the normal clearing period.

Pursuant to the BPLA, Global Bank “bills purchased” Security Bank & Trust Company (SBTC)
Manager’s Check (MC) No. 037364 issued in the name of Chiok and credited the same amount
of the MC to the latter’s Savings Account. Global Bank issued MC No. 025935 and MC No.
025939 to Gonzalo Bernardo , who is the same person as Nuguid, pursuant to Chiok’s
instruction. Likewise upon Chiok’s application, Metrobank issued Cashier’s Check (CC) No.
003380 in the name of Bernardo.

Chiok filed a Complaint for damages with application for ex parte restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction with the RTC of Quezon City against the spouses Nuguid, Global Bank
and Metrobank. On the same day, RTC issued a TRO directing the spouses Nuguid to refrain
from presenting the said checks for payment and the depositary banks from honoring the same
until further orders from the court.

RTC rendered its Decision in favor Chiok and ordering the depository banks to pay him. CA
affirmed the lower courts’s decision with modifications that states that the contract to buy foreign
currency between Chiok and Naguid is rescinded.

ISSUE:
WON purchaser of manager’s and cashier’s checks has a right to have the checks cancelled by
filing an action for rescission of its contrcat with the payee.

RULINGS:
No. Under Art. 1191 of the Civil Code, the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal
ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The
injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the
payment of damages in either case. When Nuguid failed to deliver the agreed amount to Chiok,
the latter had a cause of action against Nuguid to ask for the rescission of their contract. On the
other hand, Chiok did not have a cause of action against Metrobank and Global Bank that would
allow him to rescind the contracts of sale of the manager’s or cashier’s checks, which would
have resulted in the crediting of the amounts thereof back to his accounts.

Moreover, the right of rescission under Article 1191 of the Civil Code can only be exercised in
accordance with the principle of relativity of contracts under Article 1131. Under Article 1131,
contracts can only bind the parties who entered into it, and it cannot favor or prejudice a third
person, even if he is aware of such contract and has acted with knowledge thereof. Metrobank
and Global Bank are not parties to the contract to buy foreign currency between Chiok and
Nuguid. Therefore, they are not bound by such contract and cannot be prejudiced by the failure
of Nuguid to comply with the terms thereof.

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