Sesbreno vs CA

RAUL SESBREO vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION AND

PILIPINAS BANK
G.R. No. 89252 May 24, 1993
FACTS: Raul Sesbreno made a money market placement in the amount of P300,000
with PhilFinance, with a term of 32 days. PhilFinance issued to Sesbreno the
Certificate of Confirmation of Sale of a Delta Motor Corporation Promissory Note
(DMC PN No. 2731), the Certificate of Securities Delivery Receipt indicating the sale
of the Note with notation that said security was in the custody of Pilipinas Bank, and
postdated checks drawn against the Insular Bank of Asia and America for
P304,533.33 payable on 13 March 1981. The checks were dishonored for having
been drawn against insufficient funds. Philfinance delivered to petitioner
Denominated Custodian Receipt (DCR).
Petitioner approached Ms. Elizabeth de Villa of private respondent Pilipinas, and
handed her a demand letter informing the bank that his placement with Philfinance
in the amount reflected in the DCR had remained unpaid and outstanding, and that
he in effect was asking for the physical delivery of the underlying promissory note.
Petitioner then examined the original of the DMC PN No. 2731 and found: that the
security had been issued on 10 April 1980; that it would mature on 6 April 1981;
that it had a face value of P2,300,833.33, with the Philfinance as payee and
private respondent Delta Motors Corporation (Delta) as maker; and that on face
of the promissory note was stamped NON NEGOTIABLE. Pilipinas did not deliver
the Note, nor any certificate of participation in respect thereof, to petitioner.
Petitioner later made similar demand letters again asking private respondent
Pilipinas for physical delivery of the original of DMC PN No. 2731.
Petitioner also made a written demand upon private respondent Delta for the partial
satisfaction of DMC PN No. 2731, explaining that Philfinance, as payee thereof, had
assigned to him said Note to the extent of P307,933.33. Delta, however, denied any
liability to petitioner on the promissory note.
As petitioner had failed to collect his investment and interest thereon, he filed an
action for damages against private respondents Delta and Pilipinas.
ISSUE: WON DMC PN No. 2731 marked as non-negotiable may be assigned?
HELD: YES. Only an instrument qualifying as a negotiable instrument under the
relevant statute may be negotiated either by indorsement thereof coupled with
delivery, or by delivery alone where the negotiable instrument is in bearer form. A
negotiable instrument may, however, instead of being negotiated, also
be assigned or transferred. The legal consequences of negotiation as distinguished
from assignment of a negotiable instrument are, of course, different. A nonnegotiable instrument may, obviously, not be negotiated; but it may be assigned or
transferred, absent an express prohibition against assignment or transfer written in
the face of the instrument:
The words not negotiable, stamped on the face of the bill of lading, did not
destroy its assignability, but the sole effect was to exempt the bill from the
statutory provisions relative thereto, and a bill, though not negotiable, may be
transferred by assignment; the assignee taking subject to the equities between the
original parties. 12 (Emphasis added)

DMC PN No. 2731, while marked non-negotiable, was not at the same time
stamped non-transferable or non-assignable. It contained no stipulation which
prohibited Philfinance from assigning or transferring, in whole or in part, that Note.