24 October 2013

The Law School Standards CommitteeAteneo de Manila UniversitySchool of LawRockwell Center, Makati CityC/o The Students Appeals Committee

Dear Sirs:

I respectfully request for a reconsideration of my final grades in Negotiable Instruments under Atty. Francis Joseph Ampil.

Credits given to my answers to the questions posed in the final examination for the above cited subject of this motion for reconsideration. Please refer to the final examination questionnaire (Annex “A”) and my final examination booklet (Annex “B”) for your easy reference.

1) Part I, Item 2:

What are the warranties of a General Indorser

One of my answers:

That the instrument is genuine and what it purports to be

Credit Given: none

Basis for reconsideration:

I respectfully move for reconsideration that my answer be given additional credit.

According to the answer of Golda Zamuco who merited 1 point:That the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be

With this I respectfully submit that my answer be given additional credit of 1 point.

2) Part 1, Item 2

What are the warranties of a General Indorser

One of my answers:

That the prior parties have capacity to contract

Credit Given: none

Basis for reconsideration:

I respectfully move for reconsideration that my answer be given additional credit.

According to the answer of Golda Zamuco who merited 1 point:That all the prior parties have capacity to contract

With this I respectfully submit that my answer be given additional credit of 1 point.

3) Part I, Item 3

When Notice of Dishonor need not be given to drawer

One of my answers:

Drawer is the person who instrument is presented to for payment

Credit Given: none

Basis for reconsideration:

I respectfully move for reconsideration that my answer be given additional credit.

According to the answer of Golda Zamuco who merited 1 point:When the drawer is the person to whom the instrument is presented for payment

With this I respectfully submit that my answer be given additional credit of 1 point.

4) Part I, Item 6

Obligations of Bonded Warehouseman

One of my answers:

To issue receipts for each transaction

Credit Given: none

Basis for reconsideration:

I respectfully move for reconsideration that my answer be given additional credit.

With this I respectfully submit that my answer be given additional credit of 3 points.

5) Part II, Item 2

My answer:

In a material alteration, the instrument is avoided except as against those made, authorized or assented to the alteration. But a holder in due course can still be paid the amount of instrument in its original tenor, provided they were not a party to the alteration.

In this case, however, X had already accepted the amount before it found out about the alteration. As acceptor, he is already liable to pay the amount of the instrument according to the tenor of his acceptance. He is precluded from using alteration as a defense, as against C, a holder in due course.

What X can do is dishonor the instrument for non-payment. Then B, the indorser, will be liable for the instrument in its altered tenor.

Credit Given: none

Basis for reconsideration: According to the answer of

There are two schools of thought with regard to the issue presented at hand.

The first view is based on the warranties of an acceptor provided for by the NIL which states that the acceptor engages that he will pay the instrument according to the tenor of his acceptance. If we follow this as a legal bases, then X must be liable for 350,000 which is the amount he accepted.

On the other hand, the second view is based on 124 of the NIL, paragraph 2 which states that when an instrument is materially altered and is in the hands of a holder in due course not a party to the alteration, he may collect according to the original tenor. If we follow this as our legal basis, then X will only be liable for P35,000, the original tenor.

However, considering the spirit of the NIL, which is to encourage people to rely and trust in negotiable instruments, it can be said that the first view will be more consistent since it is in favor of a holder who is presumed to be a holder in due course.

I respectfully move for reconsideration that my answer be given additional credit.

With this I respectfully submit that my answer be given additional credit of 3 points.

Should a review of my exam answers be permitted and additional credits of at least 5 points from the manifest oversight be granted as a result thereof, I would merit a final grade of 75% in the appealed subject. Accordingly, this would allow me to continue my studies at the Ateneo Law School and the case for probationary status be dropped.

I fully understand that it is the policy of the Law School that my grades are deemed final upon its official release. I also understand that an appeal is purely a matter of privilege and not a right. However, I respectfully pray that you find merit in my arguments and grant my earnest motion.

Thank you for your kind attention and I look forward to your favorable consideration of this request.

Yours sincerely,

xxxx