4/7/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
with check numbers 034967 and 034968 worth US $150,000.00 each or for
the total amount of US $300,000.00 ("subject [demand/bank][6] drafts" [or
simply "subject drafts"]) in order to play in the Premium Programme of the
casino. This Premium Programme offers the patron a 1% commission rebate
on his turnover at the gambling table and a .10% rebate for complimentary
expenses. Before upgrading x x x Llorente to this programme, [SCPL]
contacted first EPCIB to check the status of the subject drafts. The latter
confirmed that the same were issued on clear funds without any stop
payment orders. Thus, Llorente was allowed to buy in on a Premium
Programme and his front money account in the casino was credited with US
$300,000.00.
On 18 July 2000, [SCPL] deposited the subject drafts with Thomas Cook Ltd.
On 1 August 2000, it received the advice of Bank of New York about the
"Stop Payment Order" prompting it to make several demands, the final
being on 22 August 2002, upon Llorente to make good his obligation.
However, the latter refused to pay. It likewise asked EPCIB on 30 August
2002 for a settlement which the latter denied on the ground that it was
Llorente who requested the Stop Payment Order and no notice of dishonor
was given.
On 28 January 2003, the [RTC] deemed it proper to grant and issue a writ of
preliminary attachment because the acts of Llorente, i.e., leaving the hotel
premises without informing [SCPL] of his whereabouts, failing to pay for all
the services he had availed and/or not making sure that these would be paid
y the checks he negotiated and indorsed, requesting for a Stop Payment
Order despite knowledge that these checks are to answer for the payment
for all services he had availed, failing to communicate for the settlement of
his outstanding obligation and for leaving and/or transferring residence
without notifying [SCPL] of his forwarding address, are clear indications of
his intention to renege on his obligation and defraud [SCPL].
For his part, Llorente alleged that he caused the stoppage of the subject
drafts' payment because (SCPL's] personnel and representatives committed
fraud and unfair gaming practices during his stay in the casino on 12 July up
to 17 July 2000. He also countered that the case should be dismissed on the
ground that [SCPL] lacks the legal capacity to sue since the "isolated
tr1nsaction rule" for which it anchored its right to bring action in our courts
presupposes that the transaction subject matter of the complaint must have
occurred in the Philippines, which however, is not the situation at bar since it
is clear from the narration that the same occurred in Australia.
On the other hand, EPCIB, in its Answer, not only alleged [SCPL's] lack of
personality to sue before Philippine courts, but denied also that it
unjustifiably and maliciously refused to settle the obligation since it merely
complied with the instructions of Llorente, as payee of the subject drafts, to
stop payment thereon. It further went on saying that [SCPL] had no cause
of action against it because there was no privity of contract between them.
EPCIB likewise filed a cross-claim against Llorente since it already
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65911
2/22