1) Ricardo Marasigan defaulted on payments for his BPI Express credit card due to professional and personal reasons. BPI Express and Marasigan arranged for Marasigan to immediately pay his obligations in cash.
2) However, Marasigan paid with a postdated check instead of cash. Believing his obligations were settled, Marasigan then used his credit card but it was denied.
3) The court ruled that a postdated check is not considered immediate payment in cash as agreed in the arrangement, as a check is a substitute for money, not money itself. Therefore, BPI Express was justified in suspending Marasigan's credit card for non-payment.
1) Ricardo Marasigan defaulted on payments for his BPI Express credit card due to professional and personal reasons. BPI Express and Marasigan arranged for Marasigan to immediately pay his obligations in cash.
2) However, Marasigan paid with a postdated check instead of cash. Believing his obligations were settled, Marasigan then used his credit card but it was denied.
3) The court ruled that a postdated check is not considered immediate payment in cash as agreed in the arrangement, as a check is a substitute for money, not money itself. Therefore, BPI Express was justified in suspending Marasigan's credit card for non-payment.
1) Ricardo Marasigan defaulted on payments for his BPI Express credit card due to professional and personal reasons. BPI Express and Marasigan arranged for Marasigan to immediately pay his obligations in cash.
2) However, Marasigan paid with a postdated check instead of cash. Believing his obligations were settled, Marasigan then used his credit card but it was denied.
3) The court ruled that a postdated check is not considered immediate payment in cash as agreed in the arrangement, as a check is a substitute for money, not money itself. Therefore, BPI Express was justified in suspending Marasigan's credit card for non-payment.
1) Ricardo Marasigan defaulted on payments for his BPI Express credit card due to professional and personal reasons. BPI Express and Marasigan arranged for Marasigan to immediately pay his obligations in cash.
2) However, Marasigan paid with a postdated check instead of cash. Believing his obligations were settled, Marasigan then used his credit card but it was denied.
3) The court ruled that a postdated check is not considered immediate payment in cash as agreed in the arrangement, as a check is a substitute for money, not money itself. Therefore, BPI Express was justified in suspending Marasigan's credit card for non-payment.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS and RICARDO J.
MARASIGAN, G.R. No. 120639. September 25, 1998, J. Kapunan
Settled is the doctrine that a check is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself operate as payment. This is especially true in the case of a postdated check. FACTS: Ricardo Marasigan private respondent is complimentary member of BPI Express Card Corp (BECC). It was stated in their contract that non-payment of due bill automatically suspends his credit card. Due to professional and personal reasons he defaulted in payment. Instead of automatically suspending the credit card BPI Express and Marasigan made arrangement that Private respondent Marasigan should pay immediately in cash his obligations. However, instead of paying in cash Marasigan paid in postdated check. With the belief that he already settled his obligations, using the credit card he treated his colleagues at Caf Adriatico using his credit card which was denied by the caf. Felt embarrassed he filed in court for damages. BPI claimed on the other hand that Marasigan violated their arrangement when he did not pay in cash. ISSUE: Whether the payment through a postdated check extinguishes Marasigans obligation payable in cash as provided in their arrangement with BPI? RULING: No. Clearly, the purpose of the arrangement between the parties was for the immediate payment of the private respondent's outstanding account, in order that his credit card would not be suspended. As agreed upon by the parties, on the following day, private respondent did issue a check for P15, 000. However, the check was postdated 15 December 1989. Settled is the doctrine that a check is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself operate as payment. This is especially true in the case of a postdated check. Thus, the issuance by the private respondent of the postdated check was not effective payment. It did not comply with his obligation under the arrangement with Miss Lorenzo. Petitioner Corporation was therefore justified in suspending his credit card.
Philippine Commercial International Bank (Formerly Insular Bank of Asia and America) vs. Court of Appeals and Ford Philippines, Inc. and Citibank, N.A.