5/24/2018 Serrano vs CA

1/2

SERRANO VS CA (1991)

Petition: Petition for ReviewPetitioner: Loreta SerranoRespondent: Court of Appeals and Long LifePawnShop, Inc.Ponencia: Feliciano, J.

DOCTRINE:A pawn ticket is not a negotiable instrument.

FACTS:

1. In March 1968, petitioner Loreta Serrano boughtjewelry from Niceta Ribaya amounting to P48,500.

2. Serrano instructed Josefina Rocco, her privatesecretary to pawn the jewelry.

3. Rocco pledged the said jewelry for P22,000 torespondent Long Life Pawnshop, Inc. then escapedwith the money. A pawn ticket was also issued for

the said pieces of jewelry stating that it wasredeemable "on presentation by the bearer."

4. Three months later, Serrano came to the knowledgethat the pawnshop ticket for her jewelry was beingsold.

5. Serrano went to the pawnshop and told the owner,Yu An Kiong not to permit anyone to redeem thejewelry as she was the lawful owner thereof. Shealso filed a complaint against Rocco with the policeauthorities and the latter also ordered the pawnshopto hold the jewelry and notify them in case someone

redeems the same.

6. On 10 July 1968, Yu An Kiong permitted Tomasa deLeon, bearer of the pawnshop ticket, to redeem thejewelry.

ISSUES:1. Whether or not pawnshop is liable

>Whether or not the pawn ticket is a negotiable

instrument

PROVISION:

ACT NO. 203 - THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTSLAW OF THE PHILIPPINES

Section 1. Form of negotiable instruments. - Aninstrument to be negotiable must conform to thefollowing requirements:

(a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker ordrawer;

(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order topay a sum certain in money;

(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed ordeterminable future time;

(d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and

(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, hmust be named or otherwise indicated therein withreasonable certainty.

RULING + RATIO:1. Yes

Having been duly notified by Serrano and the authorit

that the jewelry pawned to it was either stolen or

involved in an embezzlement of the proceeds of the

pledge, pawnbroker became duty bound to hold the

things pledged and to give notice to petitioner and the

police of any effort to redeem them.

Although the pawn ticket stated that the pawn was

redeemable by the bearer, it did not dissolve the duty

the pawnbroker to hold the thing pledged. The pawn

ticket was not a negotiable instrumentunder the

Negotiable Instruments Law nor a negotiable docume

of title under Articles 1507 et seq. of the Civil Code.

DISPOSITION: The Petition is GRANTED. TheDecision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 September1976 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. TheDecision of the Court of First Instance dated 22 May1970 is hereby REINSTATED in toto. Nopronouncement as to costs.

5/24/2018 Serrano vs CA

2/2