Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Facts:: by Maroon 5 Partners and Associates

    Uploaded by

    Melgen
    Francisco Sycip agreed to purchase a townhouse unit from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC) in installments. After moving in, Sycip noticed defects in the unit and incomplete project features. He suspended payments pending repairs. FRC continued cashing checks so Sycip issued stop payments. FRC charged Sycip with bouncing checks. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Sycip had a valid defense since buyers can suspend payments for incomplete projects under the law. Sycip was acquitted of the bouncing check charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Facts:: by Maroon 5 Partners and Associates

    Uploaded by

    Melgen
    48 views2 pages
    Francisco Sycip agreed to purchase a townhouse unit from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC) in installments. After moving in, Sycip noticed defects in the unit and incomplete project features. He suspended payments pending repairs. FRC continued cashing checks so Sycip issued stop payments. FRC charged Sycip with bouncing checks. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Sycip had a valid defense since buyers can suspend payments for incomplete projects under the law. Sycip was acquitted of the bouncing check charges.

    Original Description:

    thanks

    Original Title

    57 Sycip v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Francisco Sycip agreed to purchase a townhouse unit from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC) in installments. After moving in, Sycip noticed defects in the unit and incomplete project features. He suspended payments pending repairs. FRC continued cashing checks so Sycip issued stop payments. FRC charged Sycip with bouncing checks. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Sycip had a valid defense since buyers can suspend payments for incomplete projects under the law. Sycip was acquitted of the bouncing check charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views2 pages

    Facts:: by Maroon 5 Partners and Associates

    Uploaded by

    Melgen
    Francisco Sycip agreed to purchase a townhouse unit from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC) in installments. After moving in, Sycip noticed defects in the unit and incomplete project features. He suspended payments pending repairs. FRC continued cashing checks so Sycip issued stop payments. FRC charged Sycip with bouncing checks. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Sycip had a valid defense since buyers can suspend payments for incomplete projects under the law. Sycip was acquitted of the bouncing check charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SYCIP JR. v.

    CA
    BY MAROON 5 PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES JUNE 1, 2012 BP22
    Facts:

    -Francisco Sycip agreed to buy, on installment, from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC), a townhouse unit.

    -Upon execution of the contract to sell, Sycip, as required issued to FRC 48 postdated checks, each on the
    amount of P9,304 covering 48 monthly instalments.

    -After moving in his unit, Sycip complained to FRC regarding defects in the unit and incomplete features of the
    townhouse project. FRC ignored the complaint.

    -Sycip served on FRC 2 notarial notices to the effect that he was suspending his instalment payments on the unit
    pending compliance with the project plans and specifications, as approved by the Housing and Land Use
    Regulatory Board (HLURB).

    -Notwithstanding the notarial notices, FRC continued to present for encashment Sycip’s postdated checks in its
    possession. Sycip sent “stop payment orders” to the bank.

    -The bank (Citibank) advised Sycip to close his checking account to avoid paying bank charges evry time he
    made a “stop payment” order.

    -Due to the closure of petitioner’s checking account, the drawee bank dishonoured six postdated checks. FRC
    filed a complaint against petitioner for violations of BP Blg 22 involving said dishonoured checks.

    -RTC and CA found petitioner guilty of violating Sec 1 of BP Blg 22 in each of the six cases.

    Issue: w/n the CA erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law.

    [Or yung related sa topic] w/n petitioner has a valid defense to the charges against him

    Held: Petitioner’s exercise of a right of the buyer under Article 23 of PD 957 is a valid defense to the charges
    against him. Petition is granted. Petitioner is ACQUITTED of the charges against him under BP Blg. 22.

    RD:

    -We find that although the first element of the offense exists, the other elements have not been established
    beyond reasonable doubt.
    Under the provisions of BP Blg 22, an offense is committed when the following elements are present: (1) the
    making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker,
    drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
    the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonour of the check by the
    drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
    valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

    We find from the records no showing that at the time said checks were issued, petitioner had knowledge that his
    deposit or credit in the bank would be insufficient to cover them when presented for encashment.

    -We are of the view that petitioner had a valid cause to order his bank to stop payment. The third element of
    “subsequent dishonour of the check…without valid cause” appear to us not established by the prosecution.

    -Following Article 11 (5) of the RPC, petitoner’s exercise of a right of the buyer under Art 23 of PD 957 is a
    valid defense to charges against him.

    Sec 23 of PD 957: The buyer of a townhouse unit has the right to suspend his amortization payments, should the
    subdivision or condominium developer fail to develop or complete the project in accordance with duly approved
    plans and specifications.

    You might also like