03 Task Performance 1

BM1905
TASK PERFORMANCE
Case digest
A digest is a summary of the Supreme Court cases. It has three (3) parts: facts, issue, and ruling. The
facts part consists only of the essential facts relevant to the ruling in the case while the issue should be
relevant to the topic under which the case belongs. The ruling should answer the issue raised in the case.
 The cases can be found on elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph.

 The case digest should be handwritten on a sheet of yellow pad paper.
Dissolution
G.R. No. 110782 Irma Idos, Petitioner, Vs. Court Of Appeals and People of the Philippines,
Respondents, September 25, 1998
Facts:
Petitioner herein, Irma L. Idos, a leather tanning businesswoman, Eddie Alarilla, a supplier and
business partner, Eddie Alarilla, the complainant below, Eddie Alarilla, the complainant below,
Eddie Alarilla, the complainant below, Eddie Alarilla, the complainant below, Eddie Alarilla, the
complainant below, Eddie Alarilla, the complainant below, Eddie Alarilla Eddie Alarilla provided
chemicals, manufactured leather, and formed a partnership with her. The parties agreed to
dissolve their partnership upon the dissolution of the firm, which had receivables and stocks of
P1,800,000.00 as of May 1986. The complainant's share of the assets was P900,000.00, and he
issued the following postdated checks, all drawn against Metrobank; the first, second, and fourth
checks were cashed; the third check (Exh. A), which is the subject of this case, was dishonored;
and the accused appellant issued the following postdated checks, all drawn against Metrobank.
In May 1986, the complainant was handed a check as 'assurance' of his share in the
partnership's assets, although it was not intended to be deposited until the stocks were sold.
The complainant subsequently filed a case alleging that the checks were to be financed from the
profits of the stock sale and the collection of receivables, notwithstanding the private
complainant's judicial declaration that there was no consideration for the check. They needed to
sell the inventory and collect the receivables. Petitioner issued the check solely to demonstrate
the proportionate participation of complainant in the partnership assets upon its dissolution while
they were still in the process of "winding up" the partnership's affairs. The payment of that
partnership share was contingent on the eventual realization of profits from unsold items and the
collection of the firm's receivables. Before the complaint may really "encash" the check, this
requirement must be satisfied or met.
Issues:
Whether the respondent court erred in holding that the subject check was issued by petitioner to
apply on account or for value, that is, as part of the consideration of a "buy-out" of said
complainant's interest in the partnership, and not merely as a commitment on petitioner's part to
return the complainant's investment share in the partnership, along with any profit pertaining to
said share.
Whether the respondent court erred in determining that petitioner issued the subject check
knowing that she did not have adequate funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of
issue, and without informing the complainant of this information.
Ruling:
The accused-appellant was found guilty by the trial court, and evidence on record showed that
the subject check was to be paid from receivables to be collected and products to be sold by the
partnership, and only when such collections and sales were achieved. Thus, the petitioner's
assertion that the subject check (Metrobank Check No. 103115490 dated October 30, 1986, in
the amount of P135,828.87) was issued to evidence only the complainant's share or interest in
the partnership, or at best, to show her commitment that when receivables are collected and
goods are sold, she would give to private complainant the net amount due him representing his
interest in the partnership.
To begin with, three of the four checks were correctly enchased by the complaint; the fourth was
not. Even this one, though, was later redeemed by the petitioner. Second, even the private
plaintiff recognized that there was no consideration for the... issue of the check, the funding of
which was contingent on future sales of products and collections of account receivables
payments.
The petitioner and private complaint remained co-partners since the relationship was not ended.
The check was thus provided to the complaint by the petitioner, as a partner would to another,
rather than as payment from a debtor to a creditor. As a result, we are certain that the check
was not written on account or for value, and that it should be regarded as drawn without
consideration at the time of issue. Petitioner's issue of the subject check was not an act
anticipated in or made criminal by B.P. 22 because it lacked the first element of the offense,
which is "the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value."
Uncertain if the unsold items would have been sold or the receivables would have been
collected by the time the checks were encashed at the time the checks were issued. Petitioner
could not be held responsible under B.P. 22 if one of the four checks was not honored
immediately away since she issued them without real knowledge of the insufficient amounts.
There is no evidence that the complaint or the drawee bank gave the petitioner notifications of
dishonor.
Rubric for grading:
CRITERIA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS POINTS

Included significant facts and clear legal issues and jurisdictions,
Content 6
and provided clear conclusions and answers
Grammar Used correct grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization 1
Organization of Expressed the points in clear and logical arrangement of ideas in
Ideas 2
the paragraph
Format Adhered to the required style or appearance 1
TOTAL 10
03 Task Performance 1 *Property of STI
Page 1 of 1

03 Task Performance 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

03 Task Performance 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

03 Task Performance 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BM1905

 The cases can be found on elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph.

Rubric for grading:

CRITERIA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS POINTS

You might also like