FACTS:

Tam Kim issued 11 checks payable to cash or bearer.  Chan Wan presented these  for  payment  but  were  dishonored  for  insufficiency  of  funds.    This prompted  Chan  Wan  to  institute  an  action  against  Tam  Kim.    She  didn't take the witness stand and merely presented the checks for payment.  Tan Kim on the other hand alleged that the checks were for mere receipts only.  The  trial  court  dismissed  the  complaint  as  Chan  Wan  failed  to  show  that she was a holder in due course.
 

HELD:

Eight of the checks were crossed checks specially to Chinabank and should have  been  presented  for  payment  by  Chinabank  and  not  by  Chan  Wan.  Inasmuch  as  Chan  Wan  didn't  present  them  for  payment  himself,  there was no proper presentment, and the liability didn't attach to the drawer.   
 
The facts show that the checks were indeed deposited with Chinabank and were by the latter presented for collection to the drawee bank.  But as the account  had no sufficient funds, they were unpaid and  returned, some  of them stamped “account closed”.  How it reached the hands of Chan Wan, she  didn't  indicate.    Most  probably,  as  the  trial  court  surmised,  she acquired them after they have been dishonored.  
 
Chan Wan is then not a holder in due course.  Nonetheless, it doesn't mean that she couldn't collect on the checks.  He can still collect against Tan Kim if  the  latter  has  no  valid  excuse  for  refusing  payment.    The  only disadvantage  for  Chan  Kim  is  that  she  is  susceptible  to  defenses  of  Tan Kim but what are the defenses of latter?  This has to be further deliberated by the trial court.