Scribd
Upload
333 views1 page

PNB Vs CA

The Supreme Court ruled that altering the check number was not a material alteration to the negotiability of the check. The check still contained the name of the drawer, drawee, and payee without any changes. The amount owed to the payee also remained the same. While the serial number was altered, this did not impact the identification of the check's issuer since the issuing government agency was printed on the check. Therefore, the alteration of the serial number only was not sufficient to invalidate the negotiability of the check.

Uploaded by

Jan Mar Gigi Gallego
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
333 views1 page

PNB Vs CA

The Supreme Court ruled that altering the check number was not a material alteration to the negotiability of the check. The check still contained the name of the drawer, drawee, and payee without any changes. The amount owed to the payee also remained the same. While the serial number was altered, this did not impact the identification of the check's issuer since the issuing government agency was printed on the check. Therefore, the alteration of the serial number only was not sufficient to invalidate the negotiability of the check.

Uploaded by

Jan Mar Gigi Gallego
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PNB v CA; G.R. No.

107508;

25 Apr 1996; 256 SCRA 491

FACTS:
The Ministry of Education issued a check drawn against petitioner bank. The payee deposited
the questioned check in its savings account with Capitol City Development Bank (Capitol) which
in turn deposited the same in its account with respondent bank. After petitioner cleared the
check, respondent bank credited Capitol for the amount. However, petitioner returned the
check to PBCom and debited the latter’s account for the amount covered by the check because
the check number was materially altered.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alteration of the check number was material to its negotiability.

RULING:
What was altered is the serial number of the check in question, an item which, it can readily
be observed, is not an essential requisite for negotiability under Section 1 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law. The aforementioned alteration did not change the relations
between the parties. The name of the drawer and the drawee were not altered. The intended
payee was the same. The sum of money due to the payee remained the same. Moreover, the
check’s serial number is not the sole indication of its origin. The name of the government
agency which issued the subject check was prominently printed therein. The check’s issuer was
therefore sufficiently identified, rendering the referral to the serial number redundant and
inconsequential.

You might also like