Abubakar v Auditor General, 81 Phil 359 [Case Digest]

 

Abubakar v Auditor General,

81 Phil 359

Facts:

            Auditor General refused to authorize the payment of Treasury warrant No. A-2867376 for P1,000 which was issued in favor of Placido S. Urbanes, but is now in the hands of herein petitioner Benjamin Abubakar. Respondent argued that the money available for the redemption of treasury warrants issued before January 2, 1942, is appropriated by Republic Act No. 80 (Item F-IV-8) and this warrant does not come within the purview of said appropriation; and because on of the requirements of his office had not been complied with, namely, that it must be shown that the holders of warrants covering payment or replenishment of cash advances for official expenditures (as this warrant is) received them in payment of definite government obligations.

            The petitioner argues that he is a holder in good faith and for value of a negotiable instrument and is entitled to the rights and privileges of a holder in due course, free from defenses.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the subject treasury warrant [which is in custody of the herein petitioner who is a private individual] is within the scope of the negotiable instruments law.

 

Held:

            No.

 

Ratio:

            But this treasury warrant is not within the scope of the negotiable instruments law. For one thing, the document bearing on its face the words "payable from the appropriation for food administration," is actually an order for payment out of "a particular fund," and is not unconditional, and does not fulfill one of the essential requirements of a negotiable instrument. (Section 3 last sentenced and section 1[b] of the Negotiable Instruments Law.) In the United States, government warrants for the payment of money are not negotiable instruments nor commercial proper.