This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SEVILLA FACTS: On March 28, 1949, Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed, jointly and severally, in favor of the Bank of the Philippine Islands, or its order, a promissory note for P15, 000.00 with interest at 8% per annum, payable on demand. The entire, amount of P15,000.00, proceeds of the promissory note, was received from the bank by Oscar Varona alone. Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya signed the promissory note as comakers only as a favor to Oscar Varona. Payments were made on account. As of June 15, 1950, the outstanding balance stood P4,850.00. No payment thereafter made On October 6, 1952, the bank collected from Sadaya the foregoing balance which, together with interest, totaled P5,416.12. Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite repeated demands. Victor Sevilla died.Intestate estate proceedings were started in the CFI Rizal. 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". On June 5, 1957, the RTC issued an order admitting the claim of Simeon Sadaya in the amount of P5,746.12, and directing the administrator to pay the same from any available funds belonging to the estate of the deceased Victor Sevilla. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision, hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether petitioner Sadaya can ask the reimbursement of the 50% of P5,746.12 from the estate of the deceased Sevilla. RULING: NO. The SC held that surely enough, as amongst the three, the obligation of Varona and Sevilla to Sadaya who paid can not be joint and several. For, indeed, had payment been made by Oscar Varona ,instead of Simeon Sadaya, Varona could not have had reason to seek reimbursement from either Sevilla or Sadaya, or both. After all, the proceeds of the loan went to Varona and the other two received nothing therefrom.All of the foregoing postulate the following rules: (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; and (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 (a) he made the payment by virtue of a judicial demand, or (b) a principal debtor is insolvent. The Court of Appeals found that Sadaya's payment to the bank "was made voluntarily and without any judicial demand," and that "there is an absolute absence of evidence showing that Varona is insolvent". This combination of fact and lack of fact epitomizes the fatal distance between payment by Sadaya andSadaya's right to demand of Sevilla "the share which is proportionately owing from him. CRISOLOGO-JOSE VS. CA Facts: Plaintiff Ricardo S. Santos, Jr. was the vice-president of Mover Enterprises, Inc. in-charge of marketing and sales; and the president of the said corporation was Atty. Oscar Z. Benares. Atty. Benares, in accommodation of his clients, the spouses Jaime and Clarita Ong, issued check against Traders Royal Bank, payable to defendant Ernestina Crisologo-Jose. Since the check was under the account of Mover Enterprises, Inc., the same was to be signed by its president, Atty. Oscar Z. Benares, and the treasurer of the said corporation. However, since at that time, the treasurer of Mover Enterprises was not available, Atty. Benares prevailed upon the plaintiff, Ricardo S. Santos, Jr., to sign the aforesaid check. The check was issued to defendant Ernestina Crisologo-Jose in consideration of the waiver or quitclaim by said defendant over a certain property which the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) agreed to sell to the spouses Jaime and Clarita Ong, with the understanding that upon approval by the GSIS of the compromise agreement with
The petitioner filed an action against the corporation for accommodation party. does not include nor apply to corporations which are accommodation parties. Jr.859. Inc. (RYL). The latter filed a complaint against the pres and vp of Steelweld for violation of BP22. is such as to charge the indorsee with knowledge that the issue or indorsement of the instrument by the corporation is for the accommodation of another. However. the court did not release Steelweld from its liabilities. By way of exception. RYL issued a check drawn against Metrobank to Armstrong Industries. especially since it is not involved in any aspect of the corporate business or operations. such as the president and vice-president. Accommodation party liable on the instrument to a holder for value. Benares. Benares and by the plaintiff Ricardo S. 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 year later. he cannot recover against the corporation thereon. Since such accommodation paper cannot thus be enforced against the corporation. RYL never paid upon delivery of the materials and despite insistent demands. the sister company and manufacturing arm of Stelco. the aforesaid check was replaced by Atty. Since the compromise agreement was not approved within the expected period of time. or the nature of the transaction. Said check was issued by the president of Steelweld at the request of the president of RYL as anaccommodation and “only as guaranty but not to pay for anything. Santos. . Mayon Branch. Issue: WON the corporation can be held liable as accommodation party? Held: No. to the amount of its obligations to the latter. it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. 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. The trial court acquitted thedefendants noting that the checks were not issued to apply on account for value. STELCO MARKETING VS. The check however was a company check of another corporation Steelweld Corporation of the Philippines (Steelweld) signed by its President and Vice President. as well as the consequences arising from their acts in connection therewith. it being merely for accommodation purposes. Despite the parties’ agreement that payment would be on COD basis. 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. relying on Sec 29 of the NIL for issuing a check for accommodation. Corollarily. It sold on 7 occasions quantities of steel bars and rolls of G. although such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party. Hence.I sheets with an aggregate amount of P126. have no power 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. the inescapable conclusion in law and in logic is that the signatories thereof shall be personally liable therefor. the check will be encashed accordingly. When defendant deposited this replacement check with her account at Family Savings Bank. Oscar Z.” Armstrong subsequently deposited the check but was dishonoured because it was DAIF*. This replacement check was also signed by Atty. If the form of the instrument.61 to RYL Construction. corporate officers. CA Facts: Petitioner Stelco Marketing Corp (Stelco) is engaged in the distribution and sale to the public of structural steel bars.the spouses Ong. It bore the endorsements of RYL and Armstrong.
can be held liable for having issued the subject check for the accommodation of Romeo Lim. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value. knew him to be only an accommodation party.” TRAVEL-ON VS. Miranda was sued by petitioner to collect on the six postdated checks he issued which were all dishonored by the drawee banks. Miranda must be held liable on the checks involved as petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the FACTS: . In accommodation transactions recognized by the Negotiable Instruments Law. who gave full value therefor to the accommodated party. But the accommodating party is bound on the check to the holder in due course who is necessarily a third party and is not the accommodated party. Travel-On was payee of all six (6) checks. that it did not become “the holder of it before it was overdue. as he had in the past accorded similar favors to petitioner. and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. private respondent is still liable thereunder considering that petitioner is a holder for value. Steelweld appealed to the CA which reversed the decision of the RTC declaring that STELCO was not a holder in due course and Steelweld was a stranger to the contract between STELCO and RYL ISSUE: Whether Steelweld as an accommodating party can be held liable by Stelco for the dishonored check. however. RYL had already been dissolved leading the trial court to rule against Steelweld and hold them liable. RULING: There was no accommodation transaction in the case at bar. i. it realized no value on the checks which bounced. is a travel agency from which Arturo Miranda procured tickets on behalf of airline passengers and derived commissions therefrom. drawer. notwithstanding such holder. ISSUE: Whether Miranda is liable on the postdated checks he issued even assuming that said checks were issued for accommodation only. cannot be deemed a holder of the check for value as it does not meet two essential requisites prescribed by statute. CA Petitioner Travel-On Inc. Miranda. it presented these checks for payment at the drawee bank but the checks bounced. receives or realizes full value which the accommodated party then must repay to the accommodating party. He argued that he had issued the postdated checks not for the purpose of encashment to pay his indebtedness but for purposes of accommodation. acceptor. by issuing or indorsing a check which is held by a payee or indorsee as a holder in due course.” and that it did not take the check “in good faith and for value. Under Section 29 of the NIL. Steelweld Corp. at the time of taking the instrument. claimed that he had already fully paid and even overpaid his obligations and that refunds were in fact due to him. Travel-On obviously was not an accommodated party.Relying on the previous decision and averring that it was a holder in due course. or indorser. without receiving valued therefor. The latter. Petitioner however urges that the postdated checks are per se evidence of liability on the part of private respondent and further argues that even assuming that the checks were for accommodation.e. an accommodating party lends his credit to the accommodated party. Stelco subsequently filed a complaint for recovery of the value of the materials from RYL and Steelweld. However. in other words. Stelco however. RULING: Steelweld may be held liable but not by Stelco. In the case at bar. An accommodation party is one who has singed the instrument as maker. and without notice that it had been previously dishonored.
However. both of them would go to the bank to withdraw the amount of the check upon private respondent’s presentation to the bank of his passbook. 66). who gave full value therefor to the accommodated party.541. one Ruben Gayon.00. Jr. and agreed to deliver to Chan a signed blank withdrawal slip. CA FACTS: FACTS: A certain Henry Chan owned a Continental Bank Manager’s Check payable to "cash" in the amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2. private respondent claimed that he deposited the check "for clearing purposes" only to accommodate Chan. by issuing or indorsing a check which is held by a payee or indorsee as a holder in due course. Travel-On obviously was not an accommodated party. it presented these checks for payment at the drawee bank but the checks bounced. an accommodating party lends his credit to the accommodated party. ISSUE:** Whether or not respondent Napiza is liable under his warranties as a general indorser. it realized no value on the checks which bounced. Napiza thus endorsed the check and deposited it in a Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) Savings Account he maintained with BPI. Private respondent acceded. RULING: Ordinarily private respondent may be held liable as an indorser of the check or even as an accommodation party. BPI assumed the risk of incurring a loss on account of a forged or counterfeit foreign check and hence. Chan went to the office of Benjamin Napiza and requested him to deposit the check in his dollar account by way of accommodation and for the purpose of clearing the same.500. failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family.500. with the understanding that as soon as the check is cleared. BPI VS CA *When BPI demanded the return of $2. petitioner BPI.statutory presumption that it was a holder in due course and that the checks were supported by valuable consideration. AGRO CONGLOMERATES VS. In so doing. was able to withdraw the amount of $2. . Travel-On was the payee of all six (6) checks. ISSUE:* Whether private respondent is obliged to return the money paid out by BPI on a counterfeit check even if he deposited the check "for clearing purposes" only to accommodate Chan. It turned out that said check deposited by private respondent was a counterfeit check. it should suffer the resulting damage. should be liable for the amount stated therein in accordance with the provision of the Negotiable Instruments Law on the liability of a general indorser (Sec. **In accommodation transactions recognized by the Negotiable Instruments Law. BPI violated its own rules by allowing the withdrawal of an amount that is definitely over and above the aggregate amount of private respondent’s dollar deposits that had yet to be cleared.500. in allowing the withdrawal of private respondent’s deposit.00 on BPI's part was its personnel’s negligence in allowing such withdrawal in disregard of its own rules and the clearing requirement in the banking system. The proximate cause of the eventual loss of the amount of $2.67 from Napiza's FCDU account. having affixed his signature at the dorsal side of the check. Using the blank withdrawal slip given by private respondent to Chan. In the case at bar.00). **Petitioner claims that private respondent.
loan and the settlement of the same would be shouldered by Wonderland. P2. qualifying the cash payment. Petitioner Soriano signed as maker the promissory notes pa yable to the bank. that petitioner would instead secure a The addendum thereon lik HELD: First.000. Thereaft er. They stipulated under a Memorandum of Agreement that the terms of payment would be P1.Petitioner sold to Wonderland Food Industries two parcels o f land. and the balance would be payable in monthly installments. It didn't find meri t to the contention that Wonderland was the one to be held liable f or the promissory notes. . the contract of surety betwee n Woodland and petitioner was extinguished by the rescission of the contract of sale of the farmland.000. original agreement was that Wonderland would pay cash and petitio The First. With the rescission.000. This addendum was not notarized. an addendum was executed between them. that Agro would instead secure a loan and the settlement of the same would be shouldered by Wonderland. there was no contract of sale that materialized. the bank was in financial distress a nd this prompted it to endorse the promissory notes for collection. the petitioners failed to pay the obligations as they were due. Petitioners became liable as accommodation parties.000 in cash. Furthermore. as it turned out.000. This loan was to cover for the payment of P1. The trial court held in favor of the bank. During that time. ewise lost its efficacy. there was no contract of sale that materialized. They have the right after paying the instrument to seek reimbursement from the party accommodated. since the relation between them has in effect became one of principal and surety. The bank gave ample time to petitioners then to satisfy their obligations. But this was chan ged through an addendum. T he original agreement was that Wonderland would pay cash and Ag ro would deliver possession of the farmlands. § But this was changed through an addendum. there was confusion in the persons of the principal debtor and surety. ISSUE: W/N Agro should be liable because there was no accomodation or surety ner would deliver possession of the farmlands.000 in shares of stoc k. However. Instead of cash payment. the vendee authorized t he vendor to obtain a loan from the financier on which the vendee bound itself to pay for.
NOT in this case because of recission § § § § Suretyship relation which exists where: 1 person has undertaken an obligation another person is also under the obligation or other duty to the obligee. either by changing the object or principal conditions. or by substituting another in place of the debtor. There must be an agreement of the parties concerned to a new contract § § § § § § § § § § person who has signed the instrument as: maker § acceptor § indorser without receiving value therefor for the purpose of lending his name to some other person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value. There must be a previous valid obligation . since the relation between them has in effect become one of principal and surety. or by subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor never presumed and it must be clearly and unequivocally shown requisites: 1. The addendum thereon likewise lost its efficacy accommodation party . after paying the holder. who is entitled to but one performance The surety’s liability to the creditor or promisee is directly and equally bound with the principal and the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors Novation . to obtain reimbursement from the party accommodated.§ contract of surety between Woodland and petitioner was extinguished by the rescission of the contract of sale of the farmland With the rescission. § § § .lacking 2. notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew (the signatory) to be an accommodation party has the right.NOT in this case extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which extinguishes or modifies the first. there was confusion in the persons of the principal debtor and surety. the accommodation party being the surety.
There must be the validity of the new contract § Sec. § Agro had no legal or just ground to retain the proceeds of the loan at the expense of Wonderland.surety no effect because of the rescission If Agro sustained damages as a result of the rescission. they should have impleaded Wonderland and asked damages The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action. 22 of the Civil Code provides: Every person who through an act of performance by another. There must be the extinguishment of the old contract. or any other means. and 4. acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground. and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party But respondent appellate court did not err in holding that Agro are duty-bound under the law to pay the claims of Regent from whom they had obtained the loan proceeds § § § § . shall return the same to him.3. Neither could Agro excuse themselves and hold Wonderland still liable to pay the loan upon the rescission of their sales contract .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.