175 SCRA 310



New Sikatuna requested for a loan from Spouses Chua.  Latter issued post-dated crossed checks in favor of former.  Thereafter, Sikatuna sold checks to  SIHI  which  upon  deposit,  checks  were  dishonored.    The  trial  court decided the case in favor of SIHI.   


Jurisprudence provides the following effects of crossing a check:
1.    The check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank
2.    The  check  may  be  negotiated  only  once—to  one  who  has  an account with a bank
3.    The  act  of  crossing  the  check  serves  the  warning  to  the  holder that the check has been issued for a definite purpose so that he must  inquire  if  he  has  received  the  check  pursuant  to  that purpose, otherwise, he is not a holder in due course.   
The  checks  in  issue  were  crossed  generally  and  issued  payable  to  New Sikatuna  Wood  which  could  only  mean  that  the  drawer  has  intended  the same  for  deposit  only  by  the  rightful  person.    Apparently,  it  was  not  the payee  who presented  the  same  for payment  and  therefore,  there  was  no proper presentment and the liability didn't attach to the drawer.  Thus, in the  absence  of  due  presentment,  the  drawer  didn't  become  liable.  Consequently,  no  right  of  recourse  is  available  to  petitioner  against  the drawer of the subject checks considering that the petitioner is the proper party authorized to make presentment of the checks in question.
Nonetheless,  the  holder  could  still  collect  from  New  Sikatuna  if  the  latter doesn't have a valid excuse from refusing payment.