TAN LEONCO vs. GO INQUI - G.R. No. L-3383

TAN LEONCO vs. GO INQUI

G.R. No. L-3383

September 13, 1907

In 1897, prior to the plaintiff’s departure to China, he turned over to Tan Tonguan, for his management, the plantations of abaca (hemp). Tan Tonguan worked the abaca and obtained 800 pesos worth of fiber, which he caused to be stored, by direction of the defendants, in a warehouse in Buhang, and after storing the draft or check in question, handing it to the plaintiff, who in the mean time had returned from China. The plaintiff then, desiring to leave again for China, presented the draft for payment in Manila, but as the defendants had suspended the payment of the same, the plaintiff was unable to collect the amount thereof. When the said abaca was stored by Tan Tonguan in Buhang it became the property of the defendants and on the face of the draft they acknowledge having received the amount of said draft. In the years 1896 and 1897, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to transfer the shop at San Isidro to the Chinaman Tan Tonguan, and the shop of Buhang to the Chinaman Lim Joco and Tim Bico. By reason by such transfers, the said Chinamen would become liable for the debt of the plaintiff directly in connection with the said two shops. The plaintiff can not now be held to the liable for the debt claimed by the defendants in their counterclaim. They must look for payment of this sum to the Chinamen in whose favor the two shops were transferred.

ISSUE:

    Whether or not the plaintiff should be relieved from the formalities of the protest for want of payment of the said draft or check, as provided for with regard to bills of exchange.

HELD:

Yes. The warehouse in which the hemp was deposited was the warehouse of the defendant. The hemp became the property of the defendant upon the delivery thereof in the warehouse of the defendant (arts. 1462 and 1463, Civil Code), and was property of the defendant at the time a complete delivery of the said abaca to the defendant. The loss occurring thereafter, without any fault of the plaintiff, was loss of the defendant. The delivery of the hemp was duly made to the defendant and constituted a valuable consideration for the said bill of exchange or check. 

It was alleged that the said bill of exchange, after being presented to the drawee in Manila, was not protested and that there is some question of the right of the plaintiff to recover upon said bill of exchange without the same having been duly protested. The action was not brought upon the bill of exchange. The bill of exchange was used only as evidence of the indebtedness. Inasmuch as the defendant had himself ordered the drawee not to pay the said bill of exchange, that protest and notice of nonpayment under these conditions was unnecessary in order to render the drawer, or defendant in this case, liable.