Undated cheques as receipt and security for investment

Hi Atty!

Ano po legal implications nito?

- Nag-issue ako ng "undated" cheques kapalit ng investment nila sa plano kong business noon na nalugi na. Nag-issue ako ng 50 thousand nung una pero wala iyong date, katunayan lang na nagbigay sila sa akin ng 50 thousand. Then, nag-issue uli ako ng dalawa pang tig-10thousand. Lahat ng tseke na ito ay walang date.

Noong in-issue ko ang mga tseke na ito, hindi pa closed account. After one year and one month since I issued the cheques, my account closed. Until now, hindi pa naman nila ipinapapalit iyong undated cheques sa dati kong bangko.

-Nalugi po iyong negosyo namin. Sa 70k na investment nila, mga 44k ang naibalik ko sa kanila nung kumikita pa iyong negosyo nung mga unang buwan.

-Ngayon, nag-insist sila na bayaran iyong napag-usapan namin na 5% monthly interest sa investment nila. Walang-wala na po talaga akong pera at hindi ko naman kagustuhan na malugi ang negosyo. Hindi po ba nasa usury law na bawal itong unconscionable interest na ito, parang 60% per annum ang lumalabas?

-Hirap na hirap na po ako. Tinago ko ito akala ko kakayanin ko. Natatakot naman po ako ma-demanda. Hindi ko sila tinataguan, hanggang opisina tumatawag sila at kinakausap ko. Nagte-text sila at nagre-reply ako at humihingi ako extension.

-Nagbanta na sila na ide-demanda ako. Tumawag sila sa office ko at kinausap iyong Human Resource Manager namin at idinetalye niya sa HR Manager namin na may utang ako sa kanila ng mahigit 100 thousand. Hindi na po tuloy ako nakakapasok sa opisina dahil ipinapahiya ako tungkol sa utang ko. Pati po ang isip ko ang gulo. Lagi rin po ako nagkakasakit.

-Ipapasa na raw nila iyong demand letter sa akin.

Ito po muli ang tanong ko.

1. Ano po ang implication ng undated cheques na na-issue ko noong active pa iyong account ko, pero ngayon ay closed account na? Maaari po ba akong makasuhan ng estafa at violation of BP 22?

2. May obligasyon pa po ba akong bayaran iyong mga ipinangako kong interes na 5% monthly kahit nalugi na iyong negosyo?

3. Feeling ko tinatakot nila ako at pinipiga na bayaran ang hangga't kaya ko. Tingin nila malakas ang posisyon nila kasi may hawak sila na tatlong (3) undated cheques na pirmado ko. Puwede ba ako mag-demanda ng threat (panakot nila lagi ay ide-demanda nila ako)? Puwede rin po ba moral damages, defamation, at unjust vexation (hindi na po ako makapasok sa office kasi nahihiya ako na parang guilty na at sinabi pa sa HR Manager namin ang pagkakautang ko; nagkakasakit na rin ako at lagi akong malungkot.)

Advice naman po. Maraming salamat.

do you have any written document regarding this 5% interest? what was the business? do you have proof that you paid them the 44k?

you should go back to work. having personal problems with finances should not lead to your termination of employment. talk to your hr manager so you can be reintegrated. besides, how can you pay if you don't have a job.

a threat to file a case against you is valid and not a crime. talking to your HR manager can be considered oral defamation because the Hr manager has no involvement in the issue.

Thanks Atty!

-We don't have any written documents re 5% interest a month for their investment. This is done verbally. Bibig lang po, usapan, at pangako na nagmula sa akin.

-The business was on production and distribution of sweets, candies, and other pasalubong. Actually, stopped operation ang nangyari kasi nag-stop operation din iyong biggest client namin.

-May written proofs po ako na nabigyan ko sila ng mga pera nung mga unang buwan na tumatakbo pa nang maganda ang negosyo bilang kita roon sa investment nila. I've been trying my best to revive the business. But then, hindi na kinaya. Kung tutuusin nga po, investment dapat iyon, kaso sa kultura natin, tingin nila utang iyon. Kung investment kasi, alam na ng investor na may risk, at kasama rito ang malugi.

Pumasok nga po ako ngayon sa opisina. Napag-isip ko rin iyong parehong punto ninyo.

Plano ko ngayon, mag-raise na lang ng pera at nang mabayaran na iyong 70k na lahat na ipinahiram niya sa akin. Ang problema, nagpipilit siya roon sa interes na 5% a month so parang 70k + interests, mahigit 100k na ang suma.

Nasa kanya pa rin iyong mga tseke na na-issue ko. Gaya ng sabi ko, walang dates lahat iyon. Malakas ang loob nila kasi hawak nila ang mga ito. Hindi ko naman sila mapuwersa na ibalik itong mga tseke na ito. Tuwing hingi nga ako ng extension para ma-settle utang ko sa kanila, lagi nila ako sinasabihan na mag-issue ng tseke. Siyempre, hindi na ako mag-issue pa ng tseke kasi closed account na iyon.

Ano po ba implikasyon ng tseke na walang date? Hindi po ba kapag sinulatan nila ng date iyon, forgery iyon?

Nakiusap ako sa bank kung puwede ma-reopen iyong checking account ko kasi nga may issued, active cheques pa ako. Kaso, sabi ng bank, after 6 months pa raw puwede ire-open kasi may policy sila.

Advisable po ba na kapag may 70k na ako, i-deposit ko na lang iyong pera sa bank account niya para at least may katunayan ako na ibinalik ko na sa kanila? Ayaw ko kasi maghawak ng cash at iabot personal ang pera sa bahay nila.

Maraming, maraming salamat po.

Hi again Atty! Don't you think this jurisprudence applies to my concern? In Pacheco vs CA and People:

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/dec99/126670.php

-- Ganito nga nangyari sa amin na katunayan lang iyong mga tseke iyon na nag-invest sila. Kaya wala rin date ang mga iyon. At bakit mahigit isang taon na hindi pa nila ipinapapalit iyon? Wala talaga sila intensyon i-encash iyon. Para lang hawak nila ako sa leeg. Nasa kanila na iyong mga tseke na iyon noong Feb 2009 at nag-closed lang iyong account ko nitong August 2010 lang.

- "... A check has the character of negotiability and at the same time it constitutes an evidence of indebtedness. 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. As per assurance of the lender, the checks are nothing but evidence of the loan or security thereof in lieu of and for the same purpose as a promissory note. By their own covenant, therefore, the checks became mere evidence of indebtedness. It has been ruled that a drawer who issues a check as security or evidence of investment is not liable for estafa.[7] Mrs. Vicencio could not have been deceived nor defrauded by petitioners in order to obtain the loans because she was informed that they no longer have funds in their RCBC accounts. In 1992, when the Vicencio family asked Virginia to place a date on the check, the latter again informed Mrs. Vicencio that their account with RCBC was already closed as early as August 1989. With the assurance, however, that the check will only stand as a firm evidence of indebtedness, Virginia placed a date on the check. Under these circumstances, Mrs. Vicencio cannot claim that she was deceived or defrauded by petitioners in obtaining the loan. In the absence of the essential element of deceit,[8] no estafa was committed by petitioners. "

- "Moreover, a check must be presented within a reasonable time from issue.[12] By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (6) months. In fact a check long overdue for more than two and one-half years is considered stale.[13] In this case, the checks were issued more than three years prior to their presentment. "

- It is clear that the checks were not intended for encashment with the bank, but were delivered as mere security for the payment of the loan and under an agreement that the checks would be redeemed with cash as they fell due. Hence, the checks were not intended by the parties to be modes of payment but only as promissory notes. Since complainant and his wife were well aware of that fact, they cannot now complain there was deception on the part of petitioners. Awareness by the complainant of the fictitious nature of the pretense cannot give rise to estafa by means of deceit.[14] When the payee was informed by the drawer that the checks are not covered by adequate funds it does not give rise to bad faith or estafa.[15]"

-- Ito pa po, wala kami written agreement patungkol sa interest. Alam ko may liability pa rin ako na ibalik sa kanila iyong nautang ko pero hindi sa mataas na hinihingi nila na 5% a month.

-There was mention that the loan shall earn interests. However, an agreement as to payment of interest must be in writing, otherwise it cannot be valid,[23] although there was actual payment of interests by virtue of the advance deductions from the loan. Once the judgment becomes final and executory, the amount due is deemed equivalent to a forbearance of credit during the interim period from the finality of judgment until full payment, in which case it shall earn legal interest at the rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum pursuant to Central Bank (CB) Circular No. 416.[24]"

good to see you are doing research.

i believe you owe them nothing, it was an investment not a loan. there was risk.

nevertheless, it will be difficult to prove. my recommendation to you is to look at it as you loaned 70K without interest of which you have already paid P44k, so your balance is P26,000. an oral agreement on interest is invalid and unenforceable. that is why i asked you whether you have a written agreement and i'm glad to see you found that with none, no interest is payable.

it is not forgery to place a date on the checks. if you give an undated check, it is presumed you authorized them to place the date.

what i recommend to you is to write a letter (or get legal representation to do it) stating your position that you owe them only P26k. this will establish why those checks are with them and the fact that you have paid P44k. (so they can't make up stories later on that the 44k was meant for something else.)

if they deposit the checks, they should first notify you that the checks were dishonored and you have 5 days to pay, the P26k, not the 70K. if you have proof of payment of the 44k, then that part should be considered extinguished.