He opened it. On page 187, in the margin of the scanned copy, was the anonymous note he had forgotten he’d even typed for himself years ago: “A check marked ‘for deposit only’ is a restrictive indorsement. A photocopy does not constitute delivery. Therefore, negotiation is invalid unless the original instrument changes hands. – See Sec. 36.”
Marco calmly cited Section 36 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, quoting De Leon’s interpretation verbatim from the PDF.
He spent three hours cross-referencing the crumbling pages, but a critical section was missing—torn out, probably by a desperate student just like him twenty years ago. negotiable instruments law de leon pdf
That was it. That was the nail for the bank’s coffin. Aling Rosa’s employee had only emailed a photocopy of the check to an accomplice—no original ever changed hands. The negotiation was void.
“The instrument itself,” Marco said, “is the embodiment of the right. A ghost of the check cannot be negotiated. The bank accepted a shadow.” He opened it
“Aling Rosa, I’m sorry. The bank’s defense is strong. The law on restrictive indorsements is unclear…”
Defeated, he went back to his office. He decided to take a walk to Aling Rosa’s tindahan to break the bad news. He found her not selling bagoong , but calmly slicing mangoes. He spent three hours cross-referencing the crumbling pages,
The case was Sarmiento v. Allied Banking Corp. , and it hinged on a single, technical point of negotiable instruments law: whether a check marked “for deposit only” could be considered a valid negotiation when it was photocopied and sent via email. His client, a struggling fish sauce vendor named Aling Rosa, had lost her life savings because of a rogue employee and a bank’s sloppy procedure.