4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Ruling of the CA The CA identified the following 3 issues raised in the appeals filed by Llorente and Equitable PCI Bank[8] (EPCIB): (1) SCPL's personality to sue before Philippine courts under the isolated transaction rule; (2) SCPL's being a holder in due course; and (3) solidary liability of EPCIB.[9] Anent the first issue, the CA held that SCPL has pleaded the required averments in the complaint — it is a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines suing upon a singular and isolated transaction — which sufficiently clothed it the necessary legal capacity to sue in this jurisdiction.[10] The CA emphasized that the subject drafts were drawn by EPCIB, which is a Philippine bank, and since the drawer is a bank organized and existing in the Philippines then naturally a suit on the draft or check it issued can be filed in any of the places where the check is drawn, issued, delivered or dishonored, which, in this case, can be either the Philippines where the drafts were drawn and issued, or Australia where the indorsement and dishonor happened.[11] On the second issue, the CA held that, contrary to EPCIB's assertion that the subject drafts were drawn without any value, the fact that Llorente used them to "buy in" into the Premium Programme of SCPL's casino which would entitle him to earn 1% cash commission or 0.1%[12] rebate on his gaming turn-over is enough to constitute as the "value" contemplated by the law, making SCPL a holder in due course.[13] On SCPL's good faith in view of Llorente's averment about the impossibility of having no face cards coming out after seven consecutive deals, the CA found the following explanation in the judicial affidavit of Paul Arbuckle[14] (Arbuckle) sufficient: x x x The game of Baccarat as played at Star City uses 8 decks of cards by 52 cards in each deck. There are 416 cards in total with 128 cards being denoted as "face" cards including the "ten value card". A single deal of [B]accarat consists of a minimum of 4 cards to a maximum of 6 cards. If we use 5 cards as an average then over 6 or 7 deals of Baccarat approximately 35 to 42 cards will be expended. Around 8.4% to a maximum of 10% of the total amount of cards available, I would consider it possible, and in fact, very likely that with such a small percentage of the total number of cards exposed that no face cards would appear.[15] Also, the CA pointed out that Llorente's conduct — "in spite of the alleged irregularities in the [B]accarat table, continued to play in said casino x x x [and] he should have · stopped playing and betting because it would entail huge losses on his part"[16] — counteracted whatever truth his claim has.[17] Regarding the third issue, the CA deemed it proper to discharge EPCIB from any responsibility considering that it already paid Llorente the face amount of the subject drafts amounting to US $300,000.00 as evidenced by the Quitclaim, Indemnity and Confidentiality Agreement[18] (Indemnity Agreement) executed on August 8, 2002.[19] The CA further reasoned that allowing EPCIB 's solidary liability would sanction unjust https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65911 4/22