Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Amindalan
Section 2C
FACTS:
HELD:
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names in the
instrument are makers are liable as such. By signing the note, the maker promises
to pay to the order of the payee or any holder the tenor of the obligation. Based on
the above provisions of the law, there is no denying that Canlass is one of the co-
makers of the promissory note
216 SCRA 738 Mercantile Law Negotiable Instruments in General Signature of
Makers
In 1979, World Garment Manufacturing, through its board authorized Shozo Yamaguchi
(president) and Fermin Canlas (treasurer) to obtain credit facilities from Republic Planters
Bank (RPB). For this, 9 promissory notes were executed. Each promissory note was
uniformly written in the following manner:
___________, after date, for value received, I/we, jointly and severally promise to pay to
the ORDER of the REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, at its office in Manila, Philippines, the
sum of ___________ PESOS(.) Philippine Currency
The note became due and no payment was made. RPB eventually sued Yamaguchi and
Canlas. Canlas, in his defense, averred that he should not be held personally liable for such
authorized corporate acts that he performed inasmuch as he signed the promissory notes in
his capacity as officer of the defunct Worldwide Garment Manufacturing.
ISSUE: Whether or not Canlas should be held liable for the promissory notes.
HELD: Yes. The solidary liability of private respondent Fermin Canlas is made clearer and
certain, without reason for ambiguity, by the presence of the phrase joint and several as
describing the unconditional promise to pay to the order of Republic Planters Bank. Where
an instrument containing the words I promise to pay is signed by two or more persons,
they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable thereon.
Canlas is solidarily liable on each of the promissory notes bearing his signature for the
following reasons:
The promissory notes are negotiable instruments and must be governed by the Negotiable
Instruments Law.
Under the Negotiable lnstruments Law, persons who write their names on the face of
promissory notes are makers and are liable as such. By signing the notes, the maker
promises to pay to the order of the payee or any holder according to the tenor thereof.
For value received, I/we jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of
Mercator Financing Company ..
The SC held that under Section 17 (g) of the NIL and Article 1216 of the Civil Code,
where the promissory note was executed jointly and severally by two or more
persons, the payee of the promissory note had the right to hold any one of the two
(2) signers of the promissory note responsible for the payment of the whole amount
of the note.
FACTS:
The Trial Court rendered its decision, ordering PBCom to re-credit or reimburse; PNB
to reimburse and indemnify PBCom for whatever amount PBCom pays to Capitol;
Abante Marketing to reimburse and indemnify PNB for whatever amount PNB pays
to PBCom. The court dismissed the counterclaims of PBCom and PNB. The appellate
court modified the appealed judgment by ordering PNB to honor the check. After the
check shall have been honored by PNB, the court ordered PBCom to re-credit
Capitol's account with it the amount. PNB filed the petition for review on certiorari
averring that under Section 125 of the NIL, any change that alters the effect of the
instrument is a material alteration.
ISSUE:
WON an alteration of the serial number of a check is a material alteration under the
NIL.
HELD:
RATIO:
In the present case what was altered is the serial number of the check in question,
an item which is not an essential requisite for negotiability under Section 1 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law. The aforementioned alteration did not change the
relations between the parties. The name of the drawer and the drawee were not
altered. The intended payee was the same. The sum of money due to the payee
remained the same. The check's serial number is not the sole indication of its origin.
The name of the government agency which issued the subject check was
prominently printed therein. The check's issuer was therefore insufficiently
identified, rendering the referral to the serial number redundant and
inconsequential.
A reading of the promissory notes show (sic) that the liability of the signatories
thereto are solidary in view of the phrase jointly and severally. On the promissory
note appears (sic) the signatures of Eduardo B. Evangelista, Epifania C. Evangelista
and another signature of Eduardo B. Evangelista below the words Embassy Farms,
Inc. It is crystal clear then that the plaintiffs-spouses signed the promissory note not
only as officers of Embassy Farms, Inc. but in their personal capacity as well(.)
Plaintiffs(,) by affixing their signatures thereon in a dual capacity have bound
themselves as solidary debtor(s) with Embassy Farms, Inc. to pay defendant
Mercator Finance Corporation the amount of indebtedness.