Is postdating a check illegal in virginia

On June 14, 1989, Virginia obtained another loan of P50,000.00 from Mrs. She received only P35,000.00 as the previous loan of P10,000.00 as well as the 10% interest amounting to P5,000.00 on the new loan were deducted by the latter.

With the payment of the previous debt, Virginia asked for the return of the first check (RCBC check no. Vicencio told her that her filing clerk was absent.

Vicencio that the checks cannot be encashed as the same were not funded.

Petitioner Ernesto also signed the three checks as required by Mrs. Vicencio with the same assurance that the checks shall not be presented for payment but shall stand only as evidence of indebtedness in lieu of the usual promissory note.

By mutual agreement of the parties, the negotiable character of a check may be waived and the instrument may be treated simply as proof of an obligation.

There cannot be deceit on the part of the obligor, petitioners herein, because they agreed with the obligee at the time of the issuance and postdating of the checks that the same shall not be encashed or presented to the banks.

101774, although said checks were respectively given undated to Mrs. The former reluctantly wrote the date on the checks for fear that she might not be able to obtain future loans from Mrs. Later, petitioners were surprised to receive on August 29, 1992 a demand letter from Mrs.

Vicencios spouse informing them that the checks when presented for payment on August 25, 1992 were dishonored due to Account Closed. Vicencios husband with whom petitioners never had any transaction, two informations for estafa, defined in Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, were filed against them.

is postdating a check illegal in virginia-12is postdating a check illegal in virginia-8is postdating a check illegal in virginia-77

By their own covenant, therefore, the checks became mere evidence of indebtedness.He should have known, then, that he need not even ask the petitioners to place a date on the check, because as holder of the check, he could have inserted the date pursuant to Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL).Moreover, as stated in Section 14 thereof, complainant, as the person in possession of the check, has prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein.Besides, pursuant to Section 12 of the same law, a negotiable instrument is not rendered invalid by reason only that it is antedated or postdated. Vicencio that the date to be placed by Virginia was necessary so as to make the check evidence of indebtedness is nothing but a ploy.Petitioners openly disclosed and never hid the fact that they no longer have funds in the bank as their bank account was already closed.

Leave a Reply