4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Said status of [SCPL] remained despite the withdrawal of the funds because at the time Llorente negotiated the subject drafts, [SCPL] had no notice that the same had been previously dishonored. In fact, it even verified the status by calling x x x EPCIB, who advised it through the latter's employee x x x Consuelo Conigado that the same were issued on clear funds and there [was] no stop payment orders.[69] The Court notes that while Llorente testified that he purportedly reported the fraud or "cheating" incident in SCPL's casino to the branch office of the Australian Gaming Commission (AGC) at the ground floor of the casino, he presented no proof, documentary or otherwise, that he in fact did file a complaint; and the RTC found his account of how he allegedly brought the matter to the AGC "not highly persuasive" noting that Llorente never mentioned anything about him having reported the incident to the AGC in his Answer, an information so vital to support his claim of fraud.[70] American jurisprudence explains the nature of drafts in this wise: A draft in the law of bills and notes is a "drawing" and has been defined as an open letter of request from, and an order by, one person on another to pay a sum of money therein mentioned to a third person on demand or at a future time specified therein. A draft is a bill of exchange, and the term "draft" is commonly employed as a synonym for the words "bill of exchange" or "check," although it cannot be the latter if it lacks the requirements of a check as distinguished from other bills of exchange. Banks are perhaps the greatest users of drafts, and they sell them to persons who desire to transmit funds. Thus a draft has been defined as a check drawn by a bank, the only distinguishing feature between a draft and an ordinary check being the character of the drawer. The instrument which is usually denominated a "bank draft"[71] is in the customary form of a check and is generally drawn by one bank upon another bank in which it has deposits much the same as the ordinary depositor draws his check upon his bank. The general rule is that such instrument is a check and subject to the rules applicable to checks. Since the term check is limited to a demand instrument and "draft" is not [as it may be payable on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time[72]], there is a distinction between the two in this respect. In its usual form a draft is a negotiable instrument.[73] (Emphasis and underscoring provided) When the CA recognized SCPL as a holder in due course[74] and it did not overturn the finding of the RTC that the subject demand/bank drafts are negotiable instruments,[75] the CA in effect ruled that the two demand/bank drafts drawn by EPCIB with Llorente as the payee are negotiable instruments. The Court totally agrees with the RTC's finding, to wit: A draft is a form of a bill of exchange used mainly in transactions between persons physically remote from each other. It is an order made by one person, say the buyer of goods, addressed to a person having in his https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65911 12/22