You're currently signed in as:
User

TING TING PUA v. SPS. BENITO LO BUN TIONG AND CAROLINE SIOK CHING TENG

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2015-01-12
MENDOZA, J.
The case of Pua v. Spouses Lo Bun Tiong[41] discussed the weight of a check as an evidence of a loan: In Pacheco v. Court of Appeals, this Court has expressly recognized that a check constitutes an evidence of indebtedness and is a veritable proof of an obligation. Hence, it can be used in lieu of and for the same purpose as a promissory note. In fact, in the seminal case of Lozano v. Martinez, We pointed out that a check functions more than a promissory note since it not only contains an undertaking to pay an amount of money but is an "order addressed to a bank and partakes of a representation that the drawer has funds on deposit against which the check is drawn, sufficient to ensure payment upon its presentation to the bank." This Court reiterated this rule in the relatively recent Lim v. Mindanao Wines and Liquour Galleria stating that a check, the entries of which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction.[42]