Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cd67?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[BENIGNO GOITIA v. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA](http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cd67?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:cd67}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 5640, Mar 25, 1911 ]

BENIGNO GOITIA v. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA +

DECISION

19 Phil. 206

[ G. R. No. 5640, March 25, 1911 ]

BENIGNO GOITIA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, AUSTRALIA, AND CHINA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

D E C I S I O N

CARSON, J.:

We think that the reasoning of the court below, based upon the agreed facts in this case, sufficiently and  satisfactorily sustains the decision from which this appeal was taken.

It may be well, however, to point out that we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant  based on his construction of the language used by this court in  our decision in a case involving another phase of the questions and facts presented by the case at bar (Landa vs. Sanz, 8 Phil. Rep,, 13). It appears to rest on a misconception of the true meaning of  the  language used  in the  former  decision, a misconception  which may well have had its origin in the imperfect and doubtless misleading translation of the original Spanish  text found in the  English version published in the official reports.

The English text of the former decision makes the court, in discussing the legal status which resulted from the transactions therein set out, expressly declare that  it  was  the duty  of  the  bank to  have, hold and reserve funds of  the drawer to the amount of the lost check, for the  payment of the new check, the execution  of which was  authorized and directed  in that decision; whereas the original Spanish version nowhere  imposed such a duty upon the bank.   The only  obligation which  the  original  decision expressly recognized  as  resting on the bank was  the "stoppage" of payment on the lost check in compliance with the judicial order which the bank obligated itself to respect and obey. It is true, that in directing and authorizing the issuing of a new check, we said that we did so in order that the payee of the lost check might be able therewith to draw out the funds which ought to be reserved in the bank for its payment. But beyond its obligation  to "stop" payment of the  lost check, the duty to reserve  these funds in the bank  clearly rested, not on the bank, but upon the drawer of the original check, to whose credit these funds originally stood in his checking account with the bank.

The judgment  of  the court  below should be  affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.  It is so ordered.

Arellano, C, J.,  Mapa, Moreland, and  Trent, JJ., concur.

tags