G.R. No. 39593 ; November 27, 1933
WESTMINSTER BANK, LIMITED, plaintiff-appellee, vs. K. NASSOOR, INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Westminster Bank sued defendant K. Nassoor, Inc. on five bills of exchange that defendant had unconditionally accepted. The bills were drawn by N. Jureidini Ltd., accompanied by shipping documents for goods from Manchester to Manila. Upon acceptance, the goods were delivered to defendant. At maturity, defendant refused payment. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff. Defendant appealed, arguing the bank was merely an agent for collection, not a holder in due course, and that defenses against the drawer should be available against the bank. Defendant also contested the judgment being in Philippine currency at the exchange rate on the date of maturity.

ISSUE

1. Whether Westminster Bank is merely an agent of the drawer or a holder in due course entitled to sue.
2. Whether defenses available against the drawer are also available against the bank.
3. Whether the judgment should be expressed in Philippine currency and at what exchange rate.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court, citing its prior decision in G.R. No. 38139 , held that Westminster Bank was a holder in due course, not merely an agent. The bank had credited the drawer’s account and allowed withdrawals, and the bills were negotiated to it. As an unconditional acceptor, defendant’s obligation must be met.
2. Defenses available against the drawer are not available against the bank as a holder in due course.
3. Under Act No. 1045 and jurisprudence, the judgment must be expressed in Philippine currency. The rate of exchange prevailing on the date of breach (maturity) governs, not the rate at the time of judgment. This rule prevents parties from gambling on future exchange rates and promotes finality. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.