News Detail

SC-Supreme Court Confirmed that the Indication of Place of Payment is a Prerequisite for the Validity of the Bill of Exchange

Sentence No. 866 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of Supreme Court ("SC / TSJ") on June 22nd, 2012, which examines the issue of reference.
(I) Judgment No. 866 SC / TSJ Bill of Exchange Validity (Case: Union of Drivers San Antonio SC): The SC / Supreme Court confirmed that the indication of place of payment is a prerequisite for the validity of the bill of exchange, and said: "According to the court empowered the plaintiffs were violated their constitutional rights of due process, defense and effective judicial protection established in Articles 49 and 26 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

He said that in this case, the bill of exchange did not establish where the payment was verified, however, operated according to the ruling, the record number of tax information (RIF J-00312136-3), reported in the same " supplies "address or geographic location of the payment and the court did not rule alleged offending in that the instrument described as a bill of exchange did not provide for the issuance or delivery site as provided for in subsection 7 ° of Article 410 of the Code of Commerce.

That the way the document called a bill of exchange was appreciated is wrong, and such valuation influenced in a decisive way to resolve the dispute, if such instrument had been valued correctly, in conformity with the provisions in clauses 5 º and 7 of Article 410 of the Commercial Code, the court alleged offender would have confirmed the decision in the first instance.
For its part, the representative of the Attorney General asked the Court to declare that the Superior Court in Civil, Commercial, Traffic and Protection of Children and Adolescents of the Judicial District of Miranda State, incurred in injuries to the due process, the right to defense and effective judicial protection, since the instrument called a bill of exchange did not meet the formal requirements laid down in Article 410 of Commercial Code.
He stressed that both the aforementioned record issued by the Board of San Antonio Drivers Union of SC, as the aforementioned minutes of regular meeting of members, were promoted as evidence by the claimant, the first certified copy during the probationary period and the latter as a photocopy of a public instrument, together with reports of second instance. However, no mention of testing were assessed by the court engaged, again incurring vices that violate fundamental principles.
But the record of the proceedings of the presentations made at the time of the hearing held by the respective representations of the plaintiff, the third party intervener and the representative of the Attorney General, the Board finds that the constitutional action must be granted , for the reasons indicated below:
...
In relation to the address provided in exchange obligations, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in judgment No. 230 of April 30, 2002, said:
...
Of the rules contained in the Commercial Code and the jurisprudence transcribed above, that this court endorses, it follows that the explicit indication of the place of payment is a prerequisite for the validity of the Bill of Exchange (formal requirement) only exceptionally could it be replaced with the address point next to the name of the drawee, on pain of being declared invalid in response to the article 411 ejusdem expressly. Hence, the court cannot substitute these with the tax residence of the plaintiff, with the only indication of the number of Fiscal Registry because only the Tax Authority is aware of such information and not the individuals. Therefore, the alleged offending judge overstepped his authority in giving validity to a Bill of Exchange that lacked the legal requirements and thereby incurred the alleged constitutional violations. So it is declared.