TRAVEL ON V. CA
210 SCRA 351
FACTS:
Petitioner was a travel agency involved in ticket sales on a commission basis for and on behalf of different airline companies. Miranda has a revolving credit line with the company. He procured tickets on behalf of others and derived commissions from it.Petitioner filed a collection suit against Miranda for the unpaid amount of six checks. Petitioner alleged that Miranda procured tickets from them which he paid with cash and checks but the checks were dishonored upon presentment to the bank. This was being refuted by Miranda by saying
that he actually paid for his obligations, even in the excess. He argued that the checks were for accommodation purposes only. The company needed to show to its Board of Directors that its accounts receivable was in good standing. The RTC and CA held Miranda not to be liable.
HELD:
Reliance by the lower and appellate court on the company’s financial statements were wrong, to see if Miranda was liable or not. This financial statements were actually not updated to show that there was indebtedness on the part of Miranda. The best evidence that the courts should have looked at were the checks itself. There is a prima facie presumption that a check was issued for valuable consideration and the provision puts the burden upon the drawer to disprove this presumption. Miranda was unable to relieve himself of this burden.Only clear and convincing evidence and not mere self-serving evidence of drawer can rebut this presumption. The company was entitled to the benefit conferred by the statutory provision. Miranda failed to show that the checks weren’t issued for any valuable consideration. The checks were
clear by stating that the company was the payee and not a mere accommodated party. And also, notice was given to the fact that the checks were issued after a written demand by the company regarding Miranda’s unpaid liabilities.