194 SCRA 169



Gomez  opened  an  account  with  Golden  Savings  bank  and  deposited  38 treasury  warrants.    All  these  warrants  were  indorsed  by  the  cashier  of Golden  Savings,  and  deposited  it  to  the  savings  account  in  a  Metrobank branch.    They  were  sent  later  on  for  clearing  by  the  branch  office  to  the principal  office  of  Metrobank,  which  forwarded  them  to  the  Bureau  of Treasury  for  special  clearing.    On  persistent  inquiries  on  whether  the warrants have been cleared, the branch manager allowed withdrawal of the warrants,  only  to  find  out  later  on  that  the  treasury  warrants  have  been


The  treasury  warrants  were  not  negotiable  instruments.    Clearly,  it  is indicated  that  it  was  non-negotiable  and  of  equal  significance  is  the indication  that  they  are  payable  from  a  particular  fund,  Fund  501.    This indication  as  the  source  of  payment  to  be  made  on  the  treasury  warrant
makes  the  promise  to  pay  conditional  and  the  warrants  themselves  non-negotiable.
Metrobank then cannot contend that by indorsing the warrants in general, GS assumed that they were genuine and in all respects what they purport it to be, in accordance to Section 66 of the NIL.  The simple reason is that the  law  isn’t  applicable  to  the  non-negotiable  treasury  warrants.    The indorsement  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  merely  depositing  them  with Metrobank  for  clearing.    It  was  in  fact  Metrobank  which  stamped  on  the back of the warrants: “All prior indorsements and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed…”