EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-5640. March 25, 1911. ]
BENIGNO GOITIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, AUSTRALIA, AND CHINA, Defendant-Appellee.
Haussermann, Ortigas, Cohn and Fisher for Appellant.
A.D. Gibbs, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. LOST CHECK; AUTHORIZATION OF NEW CHECK BY DRAWER; DUTY OF BANK. — Attention directed to the imperfect translation into English of the original Spanish text of the opinion in a former case (Landa v. Sanz, 8 Phil. Rep., 13), whereby, in discussing the legal status which resulted from the transactions therein set out, the court appears to hold that it was the duty of the defendant bank to have, hold, and reserve funds of the drawer of the lost check therein mentioned for the payment of the new check the execution of which was authorized and directed in the former decision; whereas the only obligation which the original Spanish text of the decision expressly recognized as resting on the bank was the storage of Payment on the lost check.
D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J.:
We think that the reasoning of the court below, based upon the agreed facts in this case, sufficiently and satisfactorily sustains the decision from which this appeal was taken.
It may be well, however, to point out that we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant based on his construction of the language used by this court in our decision in a case involving another phase of the questions and facts presented by the case at bar (Landa v. Sanz, 8 Phil. Rep., 13). It appears to rest on a misconception of the true meaning of the language used in the former decision, a misconception which may well have had its origin in the imperfect and doubtedness misleading translation of the original Spanish text found in the English version published in the official reports.
The English text of the former decision makes the court, in discussing the legal status which resulted from the transactions therein set out, expressly declare that it was the duty of the bank to have, hold and reserve funds of the drawer to the amount of the lost check, for the payment of the new check, the execution of which was authorized and directed in that decision; whereas the original Spanish version nowhere imposed such a duty upon the bank. The only obligation which the original decision expressly recognized as resting on the bank was the "stoppage" of payment on the lost check in compliance with the judicial order which the bank obligated itself to respect and obey. It is true, that in directing and authorizing the issuing of a new check, we said that we did so in order that the payee of the lost check might be able therewith to draw out the funds which ought to be reserved in the bank for its payment. But beyond its obligation to "stop" payment of the lost check, the duty to reserve these funds in the bank clearly rested, not on the bank, but upon the drawer of the original check, to whose credit these funds originally stood in his checking account with the bank.
The judgment of the court below should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. It is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
It may be well, however, to point out that we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant based on his construction of the language used by this court in our decision in a case involving another phase of the questions and facts presented by the case at bar (Landa v. Sanz, 8 Phil. Rep., 13). It appears to rest on a misconception of the true meaning of the language used in the former decision, a misconception which may well have had its origin in the imperfect and doubtedness misleading translation of the original Spanish text found in the English version published in the official reports.
The English text of the former decision makes the court, in discussing the legal status which resulted from the transactions therein set out, expressly declare that it was the duty of the bank to have, hold and reserve funds of the drawer to the amount of the lost check, for the payment of the new check, the execution of which was authorized and directed in that decision; whereas the original Spanish version nowhere imposed such a duty upon the bank. The only obligation which the original decision expressly recognized as resting on the bank was the "stoppage" of payment on the lost check in compliance with the judicial order which the bank obligated itself to respect and obey. It is true, that in directing and authorizing the issuing of a new check, we said that we did so in order that the payee of the lost check might be able therewith to draw out the funds which ought to be reserved in the bank for its payment. But beyond its obligation to "stop" payment of the lost check, the duty to reserve these funds in the bank clearly rested, not on the bank, but upon the drawer of the original check, to whose credit these funds originally stood in his checking account with the bank.
The judgment of the court below should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. It is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
