Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

NEGO CASE DIGESTS June 10, 2013 PINEDA V.

DELA RAMA Pineda charged of misappropriations of cavans of palay; issued PN Atty Dela Rama counsel; received PN to delay filing of complaint FACTS: Pineda was caught in a case against the NARIC for his alleged misappropriation of many cavans of palay. He hired Atty. Dela Rama to delay the filing of the complaint against him, on alleged representation of the lawyer that he is a friend of the NARIC administrator. Pineda then issued a promissory note in favor of dela Rama to pay for the advances that the lawyer made to the administrator to delay the filing of the complaint. Dela Rama on the other hand contended that the promissory note was for the loan advanced to Pineda by him. Dela Rama filed an action against Pineda for the collection of the amount of the note. HELD: The presumption that a negotiable instrument was issued for valuable consideration is a rebuttable presumption. It can be rebutted by proof to the contrary.In the case at bar, the claims of dela Rama that the promissory note was for a loan advanced to Pineda is unbelievable. The grant of a loan by a lawyer to a moneyed client and whom he has known for only 3 months cannot be relied on. Pineda had actually just purchased numerous properties. It is highly illogical that he would loan from dela Rama P9500 for 5 days apart. Furthermore, the note was void ab initio because the consideration given was to influence the administrator to delay charges against Pineda. The consideration was void for being against law and public policy.

PBCOM VS ARUEGO Lessons Applicable: Liabilities of the Parties (Negotiable Instruments Law) FACTS:

December 1, 1959: Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC) instituted against Jose M. Aruego for the recovery of the total sum of about P 35K with interest from November 17, 1959 and commission of 3/8% for every thirty 30 days plus attorney's fees of 10% of the total amount due and costs o represents the cost of the printing the periodical published by the Aruego "World Current Events" o To facilitate the payment of the printing, Aruego obtained a credit accommodation from the PBC o the printer, Encal Press and Photo Engraving, collected the cost of every printing by drawing a draft against the PBC, which PBC later accepts As an added security for the payment of the amounts advanced to Encal Press and Photo-Engraving, PBC required Aruego to execute a trust receipt (PBC hold in trust for Aruego the periodicals and to sell the same with the promise to turn over to the Aruego the proceeds for the payment of all obligations arising from the draft) trial court: Aruego to pay to the PBC o Aruego: signed the supposed bills of exchange as an agent of the Philippine Education Foundation Company where he is president Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Law

"Where the instrument contains or a person adds to his signature words indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal or in a representative capacity, he is not liable on the instrument if he was duly authorized; but the mere addition of words describing him as an agent or as filing a representative character, without disclosing his principal, does not exempt him from personal liability." signed the drafts only as an accommodation party and as such, should be made liable only after a showing that the drawer is incapable of paying

not really bills of exchange but mere pieces of evidence of indebtedness because payments were made before acceptance

ISSUE: W/N Aruego should be personally liable HELD: YES. CFI AFFIRMED.

nowhere has he disclosed that he was signing as a representative of the Philippine Education Foundation Company o For failure to disclose his principal, Aruego is personally liable for the drafts he accepted An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, indorser, without receiving value therefor and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of the taking of the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party o he signed as a drawee/acceptor Under the Negotiable Instrument Law, a drawee is primarily liable As long as a commercial paper conforms with the definition of a bill of exchange, that paper is considered a bill of exchange o The nature of acceptance is important only in the determination of the kind of liabilities of the parties involved, but not in the determination of whether a commercial paper is a bill of exchange or not

CLARK VS SELLNER FACTS: Defendant, in conjunction with two other persons, signed a note in favour of plaintiff: P12,000.00 MANILA, July 1, 1914. Six months after date, for value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of R. N. Clark at his office in the city of Manila, the sum of twelve thousand pesos, Philippine currency, with interest thereon in like currency from date until paid at the rate of ten per cent per annum, payable quarterly. If suit is necessary to collect this note, we hereby agree to pay as attorney's fees ten per centum of the amount found due.

(Sgd.) W. H. CLARKE, [INTERNAL REVENUE JOHN MAYE. [STAMP.] By W. H. CLARKE, his attorney. GEO. C. SELLNER." The note matured, but its amount was not paid. Counsel for the defendant alleged that the latter did not receive in that transaction either the whole or any part of the amount of the debt; that the instrument was not presented to the defendant for payment; and that the defendant, being an accommodation party, is not liable unless the note is negotiated, which was not done, as shown by the evidence. ISSUES: 1. 2. 3. HELD:

Whether or not defendant may be held liable for the note although he did not received either the whole or any part of the amount of the debt; Whether or not the instrument should be presented to defendant to held him liable thereof; and Whether or not defendant, an accommodation party, is not liable unless the note is negotiated, which was not done in this case? 1.

The liability of the defendant, as one of the signers of the note, is not dependent on whether he has, or has not, received any part of the amount of the debt. The defendant is really and expressly one of the joint and several debtors on the note, and as such he is liable under the provisions of section 60 of Act No. 2031, entitled The Negotiable Instruments Law, which provisions should be applied in this case in view of the character of the instrument. 2. As to presentment for payment, such action is not necessary in order to charge the person primarily liable, as is the defendant. (Sec. 70, Act No. 2031.) 3. As to whether or not the defendant is an accommodation party, it should be taken into account that by putting his signature to the note, he lent his name, not to the creditor, but to those who signed with him placing himself with respect to the creditor in the same position and with the same liability as the said signers. It should be noted that the phrase "without receiving value therefor," as used in section 29 of the NIL means "without receiving value by virtue of the instrument" and not, as it apparently is supposed to mean, "without receiving payment for lending his name." If, as in the instant case, a sum of money was received by virtue of the note, it is immaterial, so far as the creditor is concerned, whether one of the signers has, or has not, received anything in payment of the use of his name. In reality the legal situation of the defendant in this case may properly be regarded as that of a joint surety rather than that of an accommodation party. The defendant, as a joint surety, may, upon the maturity of the note, pay the debt, demand the collateral security and dispose of it to his benefit; but there is no proof whatever that this was done. As to the plaintiff, he is the "holder for value," under the phrase of said section 29, NIL, for he had paid the money to the signers at the time the note was executed and delivered to him. As such holder (Plaintiff), he has the right to demand payment of the debt from the signer of the note, even though he knows that said person is merely an accommodation party (section 29 above cited), assuming the defendant to be such, which, as has been stated, is not the case. The judgment appealed from is reversed. Ordering that the plaintiff recover from the defendant the sum of twelve thousand pesos (P12,000), as principal debt, plus one thousand two hundred pesos (P1,200), the sum agreed upon as attorney's fees, and 10 per cent interest on the principal debt from July 1, 1914, until it is fully paid, deducting therefrom the sum of three hundred pesos (P300) already paid on account, as stated in the complaint.

SADAYA VS SEVILLA FACTS:

March 28, 1949: Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed, jointly and severally, in favor of the BPI, or its order, a promissory note for P15,000.00 with interest at 8% per annum, payable on demand. o The P15,000.00 proceeds was received by Oscar Varona alone. o Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya signed the promissory note as co-makers only as a favor to Oscar Varona. June 15, 1950: outstanding balance is P4,850.00. No payment thereafter made. Oct 16 1952: bank collected from Sadaya total of P5,416.12(w/ int) Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite repeated demands. V o Victor Sevilla died Francisco Sevilla was named administrator. Sadaya filed a creditor's claim for the above sum of P5,746.12, plus attorneys fees in the sum of P1,500.00 o The administrator resisted the claim upon the averment that the deceased Victor Sevilla "did not receive any amount as consideration for the promissory note," but signed it only "as surety for Oscar Varona June 5, 1957: Trial court order the administrator to pay

CA reversed. ISSUE: W/N Sadaya can claim against the estate of Sevilla as co-accomodation party when Verona as principal debtor is not yet insolvent HELD: NO. Affirmed

Varona is bound by the obligation to reimburse Sadaya o solidary accommodation maker who made payment has the right to contribution, from his co-accommodation maker, in the absence of agreement to the contrary between them, and subject to conditions imposed by law requisites before one accommodation maker can seek reimbursement from a co-accommodation maker. o ART. 2073. When there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the same debt, the one among them who has paid may demand of each of the others the share which is proportionally owing from him. o If any of the guarantors should be insolvent, his share shall be borne by the others, including the payer, in the same proportion. (1) A joint and several accommodation maker of a negotiable promissory note may demand from the principal debtor reimbursement for the amount that he paid to the payee; (2) a joint and several accommodation maker who pays on the said promissory note may directly demand reimbursement from his co-accommodation maker without first directing his action against the principal debtor provided that o (a) he made the payment by virtue of a judicial demand, or -no judicial demand just voluntarily o (b) a principal debtor is insolvent. - Varona is not insolvent

REPUBLIC BANK VS EBRADA Lessons Applicable: Forgery (Negotiable Instruments Law) FACTS:

February 27, 1963: Mauricia T. Ebrada, encashed Back Pay Check dated January 15, 1963 for P1,246.08 at Republic Bank

check was issued by the Bureau of Treasury

Bureau advised Republic Bank that the indorsement on the reverse side of the check by the payee, "Martin Lorenzo" was a forgery because he died as of July 14, 1952 and requested a refund July 11, 1966: Ebrada filed a Third-Party complaint against Adelaida Dominguez who, in turn, filed on September 14, 1966 a Fourth-Party complaint against Justina Tinio. March 21, 1967: City Court of Manila favored Republic against Ebrada, for Third-Party plaintiff against Adelaida Dominguez, and for Fourth-Party plaintiff against Justina Tinio CA: reversed Mauricia T. Ebrada claim against Adelaida Dominguez and Domiguez against Justina Tinio

W/N: Ebrada should be held liable. HELD: YES. Affirmed in toto.

under Section 65 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:

Every person negotiating an instrument by delivery or by qualified indorsement, warrants: (a) That the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be. (b) That she has good title to it. xxx xxx xxx Every indorser who indorses without qualification warrants to all subsequent holders in due course: (a) The matters and things mentioned in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of the next preceding sections; (b) That the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting.

Under action 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act 2031):

When a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instruments, or to give a discharge thereof against any party thereto, can be acquired through or under such signature unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.

Martin Lorenzo (forged as original payee) > Ramon R. Lorenzo (2nd indorser) = NO EFFECT Ramon R. Lorenzo(2nd indorser)> Adelaida Dominguez (third indorser)>Adelaida Dominguez to Ebrada who did not know of the forgery = valid and enforceable barring any claim of forgery drawee of a check can recover from the holder the money paid to him on a forged instrument

not its duty to ascertain whether the signatures of the payee or indorsers are genuine or not

indorser is supposed to warrant to the drawee that the signatures of the payee and previous indorsers (NOT only holders in due course) are genuine

RATIONALE: . indorsers own credulity or recklessness, or misplaced confidence was the sole cause of the loss. Why should he be permitted to shift the loss due to his own fault in assuming the risk, upon the drawee, simply because of the accidental circumstance that the drawee afterwards failed to detect the forgery when the check was presented

Ebrada , upon receiving the check in question from Adelaida Dominguez, was duty-bound to ascertain whether the check in question was genuine before presenting it to plaintiff Bank for payment Based on the doctrine from Great Eastern Life Ins. Co. v. Hongkong Shanghai Bank (1922) , bank should suffer the loss when it paid the amount of the check in question to Ebrada, but it has the remedy to recover from the Ebrada the amount it paid Ebrada immediately turning over to Adelaida Dominguez (Third-Party defendant and the Fourth-Party plaintiff) who in turn handed the amount to Justina Tinio on the same date would not exempt her from liability because by doing so, she acted as an accommodation party in the check for which she is also liable under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act 2031):

An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party.

PRUDENCIO VS CA Lessons Applicable: Forgery (Negotiable Instruments Law) FACTS:

February 27, 1963: Mauricia T. Ebrada, encashed Back Pay Check dated January 15, 1963 for P1,246.08 at Republic Bank

check was issued by the Bureau of Treasury

Bureau advised Republic Bank that the indorsement on the reverse side of the check by the payee, "Martin Lorenzo" was a forgery because he died as of July 14, 1952 and requested a refund July 11, 1966: Ebrada filed a Third-Party complaint against Adelaida Dominguez who, in turn, filed on September 14, 1966 a Fourth-Party complaint against Justina Tinio. March 21, 1967: City Court of Manila favored Republic against Ebrada, for Third-Party plaintiff against Adelaida Dominguez, and for Fourth-Party plaintiff against Justina Tinio CA: reversed Mauricia T. Ebrada claim against Adelaida Dominguez and Domiguez against Justina Tinio

W/N: Ebrada should be held liable. HELD: YES. Affirmed in toto.

under Section 65 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:

Every person negotiating an instrument by delivery or by qualified indorsement, warrants: (a) That the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be. (b) That she has good title to it. xxx xxx xxx Every indorser who indorses without qualification warrants to all subsequent holders in due course: (a) The matters and things mentioned in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of the next preceding sections; (b) That the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting.

Under action 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act 2031):

When a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instruments, or to give a discharge thereof against any party thereto, can be acquired through or under such signature unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.

Martin Lorenzo (forged as original payee) > Ramon R. Lorenzo (2nd indorser) = NO EFFECT Ramon R. Lorenzo(2nd indorser)> Adelaida Dominguez (third indorser)>Adelaida Dominguez to Ebrada who did not know of the forgery = valid and enforceable barring any claim of forgery drawee of a check can recover from the holder the money paid to him on a forged instrument

not its duty to ascertain whether the signatures of the payee or indorsers are genuine or not

indorser is supposed to warrant to the drawee that the signatures of the payee and previous indorsers (NOT only holders in due course) are genuine

RATIONALE: . indorsers own credulity or recklessness, or misplaced confidence was the sole cause of the loss. Why should he be permitted to shift the loss due to his own fault in assuming the risk, upon the drawee, simply because of the accidental circumstance that the drawee afterwards failed to detect the forgery when the check was presented

Ebrada , upon receiving the check in question from Adelaida Dominguez, was duty-bound to ascertain whether the check in question was genuine before presenting it to plaintiff Bank for payment Based on the doctrine from Great Eastern Life Ins. Co. v. Hongkong Shanghai Bank (1922) , bank should suffer the loss when it paid the amount of the check in question to Ebrada, but it has the remedy to recover from the Ebrada the amount it paid Ebrada immediately turning over to Adelaida Dominguez (Third-Party defendant and the Fourth-Party plaintiff) who in turn handed the amount to Justina Tinio on the same date would not exempt her from liability because by doing so, she acted as an accommodation party in the check for which she is also liable under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act 2031):

An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party.

143 SCRA 07

FACTS: Appellants, Eulalia Prudencio and Elsie Prudencio were the registered owners of a parcel of land which was mortgaged by them to PNB to guarantee a loan of P1,000.00 extended to one Domingo Prudencio. After some persuasion by the Conception & Tamayo Construction Company, appellants signed the amendment of the Real Estate Mortgage with the same parcel of land to PNB to guarantee a loan of P110,000.00 extended to the Company. The promissory note covering the loan of P110,000.00 was signed by Jose Sorebio as an Attorney-in-fact of the company and by the appellants. The appellants also signed the portion of the promissory note indicating that they are requesting PNB to issue the check covering the loans to the company. Soon thereafter, the project was abandoned by the company and the appellants ask for the cancellation of the Real Estate Mortgage. ISSUE: Whether the appellants would be held solidarily liable with the principal debtors on the promissory note which they signed as accommodation party/maker. HELD: Yes, an accommodation maker/party is a loan agreement is primarily and unconditionally liable in the promissory note to a holder for value, regardless of whether they are standing as sureties or solidarity co-debtor since such distinction is entirely immaterial and inconsequential as for as a holder for value is concerned. A holder for value under Sec. 29 of NIL is the one who must meet all the requirement of a holder in due course under Sec. 52 except notice of warrant of consideration

CRISOLOGO-JOSE VS CA FACTS: The VP of Mover enterprises, Inc. issued a check drawn against Traders Royal Bank, payable to petitioner Ernestina Crisologo-Jose, for the accommodation of his client. Petitioner-payee, was charged with the knowledge that the check was issued at the instance and for the personal account of the President who merely prevailed upon respondent VP to act as co-signatory in accordance with the arrangement of the corporation with its depository bank. While it was the corporations check which was issued to petitioner for the amount involved, petitioner actually had no transaction directly with said corporation. ISSUE: WON private respondent, one of the signatories of the check issued under the account of Mover Enterprises, Inc., is an accommodation party under NIL and a debtor of petitioner to the extent of the amount of said check HELD: YES. To be considered an accommodation party, a person must (1) be a party to the instrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor or indorser, (2) not receive value therefor, and (3) sign for the purpose of lending his name for the credit of some other person. It is not a valid defense that the accommodation party did not receive any valuable consideration when he executed the instrument. He is liable to a holder for value as if the contract was not for accommodation, in whatever capacity such accommodation party signed the instrument, whether primarily or secondarily. Thus, it has been held that in lending his name to the accommodated party, the accommodation party is in effect a surety for the latter. The foregoing notwithstanding, the liability of an accommodation party to a holder for value, although such holder does not include nor apply to corporations which are accommodation parties. This is because the issue or indorsement of negotiable paper by a corporation without consideration and for the accommodation of another is ultra vires. One who has taken the instrument with knowledge of the accommodation nature thereof cannot recover against a corporation where it is only an accommodation party. By way of exception, an officer or agent of a corporation shall have the power to execute or indorse a negotiable paper in the name of the corporation for the accommodation of a third person only if specifically authorized to do so. Corollarily, corporate officers, such as the president and vp, have no powewer to execute for mere accommodation a negotiable instrument of the corporation for their individual debts or transactions arising from or in relation to matters in which the corporation has no legitimate concern. Since such accommodation paper cannot thus be enforced against the corporation, especially since it is not involved in any aspect of the corporate business or operations, the signatories thereof (pres or vp) shall be personally liable therefor, as well as consequences arising from their acts in connection therewith.

TRAVEL-ON VS CA Lessons Applicable: Consideration and Accomodation Party (Negotiable Instruments) FACTS:

Arturo S. Miranda o had a revolving credit line with Travel-On. Inc. (Travel-On), a travel agency selling airline tickets on commission basis for and in behalf of different airline companies o procured tickets from Travel-On on behalf of airline passengers and derived commissions therefrom. June 14 1972: Travel-On filed bef. the CFI to collect 6 checks issued by Miranda totaling P115,000.00 August 5 1969 - January 16 1970: Travel-On sold and delivered airline tickets to Miranda w/ total price of P278,201.57 o paid in cash and 6 checks = P115,000 - all dishonored by the drawee banks o March 1972: paid P10,000.00 reducing his debts to P105,000 Miranda: checks were issued for to "accommodate" Travel-On's General Manager to show the BOD of Travel-On that their receivables were still good o Travel-On's witness, Elita Montilla: related to situations where its passengers needed money in Hongkong, and upon request of Travel-On, Miranda would contact his friends in Hongkong to advance Hongkong money to the passenger

CA affirmed CFI: ordered Travel-On to pay Miranda P8,894.91 representing net overpayments by private respondent, moral damages of P10,000.00 (later increased to P50,000 by CFI and reduced by CA to P20,000) for the wrongful issuance of the writ of attachment and for the filing of this case, P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and the costs of the suit - decision was because Travel-On did not show that Miranda had an outstanding balance of P115,000.00 ISSUE: W/N Miranda is liable for the 6 dishonored checks because there was no accomodation

HELD: YES. GRANT due course to the Petition for Review on Certiorari and to REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision of the CA and trial court

failed to give due importance the checks themselves as evidence of the debt o check which is regular on its face is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration and every person whose signature appears thereon is deemed to have become a party thereto for value. o negotiable instrument is presumed to have been given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration unless otherwise contradicted and overcome by other competent evidence o Those checks in themselves constituted evidence of indebtedness of Miranda, evidence not successfully overturned or rebutted by private respondent. While the Negotiable Instruments Law does refer to accommodation transactions, no such transaction was here shown o Sec. 29. Liability of accommodation party. An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of taking the instrument, knew him to be only an accommodation party. o Having issued or indorsed the check, the accommodating party has warranted to the holder in due course that he will pay the same according to its tenor. o Travel-On obviously was not an accommodated party; it realized no value on the checks which bounced.

Вам также может понравиться