You are on page 1of 14

G.R. No. 93073 December 21, 1992 REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FERMIN CANLAS, respondents.

DECISION CAMPOS, JR., J.: This is an appeal by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari from the decision * of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 07302, entitled “Republic Planters Bank. Plaintiff -Appellee vs. Pinch Manufacturing Corporation, et al., Defendants, and Fermin Canlas, Defendant-Appellant”, which affirmed the decision ** in Civil Case No. 825448 except that it completely absolved Fermin Canlas from liability under the promissory notes and reduced the award for damages and attorney’s fees. The RTC decision, rendered on June 20, 1985, is quoted hereunder: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Republic Planters Bank, ordering defendant Pinch Manufacturing Corporation (formerly Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.) and defendants Shozo Yamaguchi and Fermin Canlas to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff bank the following sums with interest thereon at 16% per annum from the dates indicated, to wit: Under the promissory note (Exhibit “A”), the sum of P300,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981 until fully paid; under promissory note (Exhibit “B”), the sum of P40,000.00 with interest from November 27, 1980; under the promissory note (Exhibit “C”), the sum of P166,466.00 which interest from January 29, 1981; under the promissory note (Exhibit “E”), the sum of P86,130.31 with interest from January 29, 19 81; under the promissory note (Exhibit “G”), the sum of P12,703.70 with interest from November 27, 1980; under the promissory note (Exhibit “H”), the sum of P281,875.91 with interest from January 29, 1981; and under the promissory note (Exhibit “I”), the sum of P200,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981. Under the promissory note (Exhibit “D”) defendants Pinch Manufacturing Corporation (formerly named Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.), and Shozo Yamaguchi are ordered to pay jointly and severally, the plaintiff bank the sum of P367,000.00 with interest of 16% per annum from January 29, 1980 until fully paid Under the promissory note (Exhibit “F”) defendant corporation Pinch (formerly Worldwide) is ordered to pay the plaintiff bank the sum of P140,000.00 with interest at 16% per annum from November 27, 1980 until fully paid. Defendant Pinch (formerly Worldwide) is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P231,120.81 with interest at 12% per annum from July 1, 1981, until fully paid and the sum of P331,870.97 with interest from March 28, 1981, until fully paid. All the defendants are also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00 as and for reasonable attorney’s fee and the further sum equivalent to 3% per annum of the respective principal sums from the dates above stated as penalty charge until fully paid, plus one percent (1%) of the principal sums as service charge. With costs against the defendants. SO ORDERED. 1 From the above decision only defendant Fermin Canlas appealed to the then Intermediate Court (now the Court Appeals). His contention was that inasmuch as he signed the promissory notes in his capacity as officer of the defunct Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc, he should not be held personally liable for such authorized corporate acts that he performed. It is now the contention of the petitioner Republic Planters Bank that having unconditionally signed the nine (9) promissory notes with Shozo Yamaguchi, jointly and severally, defendant Fermin Canlas is solidarity liable with Shozo Yamaguchi on each of the nine notes. We find merit in this appeal. From the records, these facts are established: Defendant Shozo Yamaguchi and private respondent Fermin Canlas were President/Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer respectively, of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.. By virtue of Board Resolution No. 1 dated August 1, 1979, defendant Shozo Yamaguchi and private respondent Fermin Canlas were authorized to apply for credit facilities with the petitioner

the name Worldwide Garment Manufacturing. they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable thereon. at its office in Manila. On December 20. Inc. there is no denying that private respondent Fermin Canlas is one of the co-makers of the promissory notes. by the presence of the phrase “joint and several” as describing the unconditional promise to pay to the order of Republic Planters Bank. was apparently rubber stamped above the signatures of defendant and private respondent. after date. Inc. without reason for ambiguity. each of which were uniformly worded in the following manner: ___________. 1982. when signed by two or more persons. persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes are makers and are liable as such.. but instead of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing. inter alia. In the mind of this Court. Inc. petitioner bank filed a complaint for the recovery of sums of money covered among others. Philippines. 6 An instrument which begins” with “I” . CORP. Petitioner bank issued nine promissory notes. the sum of ___________ PESOS(…. the maker promises to pay to the order of the payee or any holder 4 according to the tenor thereof. for value received. In the promissory notes marked as Exhibits C. the solidary liability of private respondent Fermin Canlas is made clearer and certain.) Philippine Currency… On the right bottom margin of the promissory notes appeared the signatures of Shozo Yamaguchi and Fermin Canlas above their printed names with the phrase “and (in) his personal capacity” typewritten below.We” . At the bottom of the promissory notes appeared: “Please credit proceeds of this note to: ________ Savings Account ______XX Current Account No. and that when he issued said promissory notes in behalf of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing. These entries were separated from the text of the notes with a bold line which ran horizontally across the pages. noted to change its corporate name to Pinch Manufacturing Corporation. A joint and several note is one in which the makers bind themselves both jointly and individually to the payee so that all may be sued together for its . I/we. In the case at bar. jointly and severally promise to pay to the ORDER of the REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK. As such. meaning that each of the cosigners is deemed to have made an independent singular promise to pay the notes in full. the typewritten entries not appearing therein prior to the time he affixed his signature. marked as Exhibits A to I inclusive. or “Either of us” promise to. Worldwide Garment Manufacturing. 2 Under the Negotiable lnstruments Law. pay. the only issue material to the resolution of this appeal is whether private respondent Fermin Canlas is solidarily liable with the other defendants. The complainant was originally brought against Worldwide Garment Manufacturing. he was not an officer of Pinch Manufacturing Corporation.. We hold that private respondent Fermin 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. Inc. On February 5. Inc. Defendants Pinch Manufacturing Corporation and Shozo Yamaguchi did not file an Amended Answer and failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference despite due notice. 7 The fact that the singular pronoun is used indicates that the promise is individual as to each other. the same were in blank. 1372-00257-6 of WORLDWIDE GARMENT MFG. Only private respondent Fermin Canlas filed an Amended Answer wherein he. namely Pinch Manufacturing Corporation and Shozo Yamaguchi. he cannot escape liability arising therefrom. makes them solidarily liable. Where an instrument containing the words “I promise to pay” is signed by two or more persons. but it was later amended to drop Worldwide Manufacturing. by the nine promissory notes with interest thereon. 3 By signing the notes. as defendant and substitute Pinch Manufacturing Corporation it its place. D and F. 5 Based on the above provisions of law.Republic Planters Bank in the forms of export advances and letters of credit/trust receipts accommodations. denied having issued the promissory notes in question since according to him. on the nine promissory notes. Inc. 1982. plus attorney’s fees and penalty charges.

— Where the instrument is wanting in any material particular. responsible in its new name for all debts or other liabilities which it had previously contracted or incurred. we rule otherwise. the liability of a person signing as an agent is specifically provided for as follows: Sec. upon such change in its name. private respondent Fermin Canlas is primarily liable as a co-maker of each of the notes and his liability is that of a solidary debtor. it must be filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and within a reasonable time… . the agent is personally liable to take holder of the instrument and cannot be permitted to prove that he was merely acting as agent of another and parol or extrinsic evidence is not admissible to avoid the agent’s personal liabil ity. Where the instrument contains or a person adds to his signature words indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal . A careful examination of the notes in question shows that they are the stereotype printed form of promissory notes generally used by commercial banking institutions to be signed by their clients in obtaining loans. 12 As a general rule. Where the agent signs his name but nowhere in the instrument has he disclosed the fact that he is acting in a representative capacity or the name of the third party for whom he might have acted as agent. or on its property. and whether effected by special act or under a general law. private respondent Fermin Canlas assumed the solidary liability of a debtor and the payee may choose to enforce the notes against him alone or jointly with Yamaguchi and Pinch Manufacturing Corporation as solidary debtors. The corporation. the corporation bearing the same name is still bound by the acts of its agents if authorized by the Board. … In order. and not merely for his proportionate share. is in no sense a new corporation. The terms and conditions of the loan are printed on the note for the borrower-debtor ‘s perusal. With or without the presence of said phrase. to Pinch Manufacturing Corporation extinguished the personality of the original corporation. 20. An incomplete instrument which has been delivered to the borrower for his signature is governed by Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides. 10 A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation. Such printed notes are incomplete because there are blank spaces to be filled up on material particulars such as payee’s name. 13 On the private respondent’s contention that the promissory notes were delivered to him in blank for his signature. in this case from Worldwide Garment Manufacturing. does not exempt him from personal liability. the person in possession thereof has a prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. nor the successor of the original corporation. Blanks: when may be filled. 9 By making a joint and several promise to pay to the order of Republic Planters Bank. that any such instrument when completed may be enforced against any person who became a party thereto prior to its completion. Inc. officers or directors under the old corporate name bear no personal liability for acts done or contracts entered into by officers of the corporation. or as filling a representative character.enforcement. but the mere addition of words describing him as an agent. or the creditor may select one or more as the object of the suit. however. one of several debtors bound in such wise that each is liable for the entire amount. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Finally. in so far as relevant to this case. rate of interest. because it is immaterial and will not affect to the liability of private respondent Fermin Canlas as a joint and several debtor of the notes. or liabilities. rights. We do not find it necessary to resolve and decide. without disclosing his principal. amount of the loan. As to whether the interpolation of the phrase “and (in) his personal capacity” below the signatures of the makers in the notes will affect the liability of the makers. thus: Sec. has no affect on the identity of the corporation. that is. 11 The corporation continues. It is the same corporation with a different name. as before. date of issue and the maturity date. or in a representative capacity. he is not liable on the instrument if he was duly authorized. 8 A joint and several obligation in common law corresponds to a civil law solidary obligation. 14. Inasmuch as such officers acted in their capacity as agent of the old corporation and the change of name meant only the continuation of the old juridical entity. and its character is in no respect changed. if duly authorized. Liability of a person signing as agent and so forth. the respondent Court made a grave error in holding that an amendment in a corporation’s Articles of Incorporation effecting a change of corporate name.

With costs against private respondent. 15 This fine distinction was not taken into consideration by the appellate court.000. the sum of P300. 1981 until fully paid. under the promissory note marked as Exhibit E.000. the sum of P40. 116. raise within the limits allowed law.00 with interest from January 29.00 with interest from November 27.) and Shozo Yamaguchi. Series of 1982 removed the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates. the sum of P281. Article 2209 of the Civil Code. Inasmuch as this Court had declared that increases in interest rates are not subject to any ceiling prescribed by the Usury Law. 1984 . 1981. The liabilities of defendants Pinch Manufacturing Corporation (formerly Worldwide Garment Manufacturing.00 with interest from January 29.31 with interest from January 29.000. the decision of the respondent: Court of Appeals absolving private respondent Fermin Canlas is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 1981 until fully paid. are applicable only to interests by way of compensation for the use or forebearance of money.466.130. 1980: under the promissory note denominated as Exhibit C. the sum of P140.00 with interest from January 29. This Court has held that the rates under the Usury Law. under the promissory note marked as Exhibit F.70 with interest from November 27. leaving the borrowers-debtors to do nothing but read the terms and conditions therein printed and to sign as makers or co-makers. When the notes were given to private respondent Fermin Canlas for his signature.875. as determined by the trial court. the amount of P12. The notes were not incomplete instruments. 16 In the light of the foregoing analysis and under the plain language of the statute and jurisprudence on the matter. it was found by the trial court that the rate of interest is 9% per annum. governs interests by way of damages. which interest rate the plaintiff may at any time without notice. The ruling in case of Reformina vs. the plaintiff had fixed the interest at 16% per annum. the private respondent Fermin Canlas is hereby held jointly and solidarity liable with defendants for the amounts found. With respect to attorney’s fees. Inc. goods or credit and court judgments thereon. Central Bank Circular No. the amount of P166. shall be adjudged in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Court a quo.703. 1981. only in the absence of any stipulation between the parties. they bound themselves as unconditional makers.000. For signing the notes above their typewritten names. We take judicial notice of the customary procedure of commercial banks of requiring their clientele to sign promissory notes prepared by the banks in printed form with blank spaces already filled up as per agreed terms of the loan. the amount of P86. which instead made a general statement that the interest rate be at 12% per annum. 1981. In the abovecited case. by the Court a quo. on the other hand. and penalty and service charges. the rate of 12% was applied to forebearances of money. for not having appealed from the decision of the trial court. the appellate court erred in limiting the interest rates at 12% per annum. to wit: Under the promissory note marked as exhibit A. as of February 16. Thus. 1980 until fully paid. 1980. In the case at bar however . We chose to believe the bank’s testimony that the notes were filled up before they were given to private respondent Fermin Canlas and defendant Shozo Yamaguchi for their signatures as joint and several promissors. under promissory note marked as Exhibit B.00 with interest on January 29. 1981. the amount of P367. 905. Judgment is hereby rendered declaring private respondent Fermin Canlas jointly and severally liable on all the nine promissory notes with the following sums and at 16% interest per annum from the dates indicated. as amended by Presidential Decree No. the sum of P200.Proof that the notes were signed in blank was only the self-serving testimony of private respondent Fermin Canlas. and the promissory note marked as Exhibit I. under the promissory note denominated as Exhibit D.000. Tomol relied upon by the appellate court in reducing the interest rate on the promissory notes from 16% to 12% per annum does not squarely apply to the instant petition. the promissory note marked as Exhibit H. so that the trial court ”doubts the defendant (Canlas) signed in blank the promissory notes”.91 with interest from January 29. And so. under the promissory note marked as Exhibit G.00 with interest from November 27. Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is not applicable. the notes were complete in the sense that the spaces for the material particular had been filled up by the bank as per agreement. . neither were they given to private respondent Fermin Canlas in blank as he claims.

1983 P27. steel bars. 1995 MANUEL LIM and ROSITA LIM. 2 (d). testified on the following transactions with respect to the seven (7) checks: . (LINTON).00 from LINTON which were delivered at their place of business on the same day. vs. 1696MN to 1698-MN. par.455. J. G. Salvador Alfonso. Blg.00 7 William Yu Bin. Kalookan City. 1983 P32. They issued as payment SOLIDBANK Check No. docketed as Crim. Narvasa. (RIGI). conspiring together. No.00 postdated 20 August 1983. On the basis of the same checks. Despite demand Manuel and Rosita refused to make good the checks or pay the value of the deliveries. 1 On 30 May 1983 the Lims ordered another 65 pieces of mild steel plates worth P63.R. 8th Street. Manuel Lim and Rosita Lim are the president and treasurer.00 3 027684 23 July 1983 P27.550. JJ. they issued seven SOLIDBANK checks.00 5 027720 13 Aug. of The Revised Penal Code. To pay LINTON for the delivery the Lims issued SOLIDBANK Check No. and with deceit issued seven Consolidated Bank and Trust Company (SOLIDBANK) checks simultaneously with the delivery as payment therefor. Inc.J. 027699 in the amount of P63. to wit: 15 and 22 April 1983. purchased goods from Linton Commercial Company. 23.00. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. signature verifier of SOLIDBANK.600 "Z" purlins worth P241. 11.P. where the Lim spouses maintained an account. 14. 1699-MN to 1705MN. Despite receipt of notices of such dishonor the Lims failed to pay the amounts of the checks or to make arrangements for full payment within five (5) banking days. Regalado and Nocon. spouses. When presented for payment within ninety (90) days from date thereof the checks were dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. docketed as Crim. On 27 May 1983 the Lims ordered 100 pieces of mild steel plates worth P51. 315. respondents. respectively. 027700 postdated 3 September 1983 in the amount of P51. flat bars and purlin sticks which it uses in the fabrication. Manuel and Rosita Lim were also charged with seven (7) counts of violation of B. 25.00 from LINTON which were delivered on the same day at their place of business at 666 7th Avenue. otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law. concur.900. In substance. Vice President and Sales Manager of LINTON. 1983 P37. (Chairman). and. Kalookan City. 107898 December 19. 22. installation and building of steel structures. The Informations substantially alleged that Manuel and Rosita. testified that when those seven (7) checks were deposited with the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation they were dishonored for "insufficiency of funds" with the additional notation "payment stopped" stamped thereon. the latter supplying the former with steel plates. 20. of Rigi Bilt Industries. five of which were — Check No.800.. BELLOSILLO.SO ORDERED. 28 and 30 May 1983.800. 2 The Lim spouses also ordered 2. Feliciano.00 6 027721 27 Aug. 2 and 9 June 1983. the Informations alleged that the Lims issued the checks with knowledge that they did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for payment in full of such checks upon presentment.900.815.900. Cases Nos.. Despite repeated notice and demand the Lim spouses failed and refused to pay the checks or the value of the goods. To pay for the deliveries. C. 60 and sometimes even up to 90 days credit. Date of Issue Amount 027683 16 July 1983 P27.00 4 027719 6 Aug.: MANUEL LIM and ROSITA LIM. As officers of RIGI the Lim spouses were allowed 30.00 which were delivered to them on various dates. Grace Park Branch. Cases Nos. petitioners. When presented to the drawee bank for payment the checks were dishonored as payment on the checks had been stopped and/or for insufficiency of funds to cover the amounts. RIGI had been transacting business with LINTON for years.455. were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon with estafa on three (3) counts under Art. Inc.200.

1983 PS and DAIF 14 Manuel Lim admitted having issued the seven (7) checks in question to pay for deliveries made by LINTON but denied that his company's account had insufficient funds to cover the amounts of the checks. which were P32. The checks were issued at their place of business. (b) they could not be held liable for estafa because the seven (7) checks were issued by them several weeks after the deliveries of the goods. In Crim. However it affirmed the finding of the trial court that they were guilty of having violated B. 1. Blg. Furthermore. 1983 PS and DAIF 13 027721 30 Aug. Similarly sentences were imposed in Crim. P27. considering that the checks were all issued. Blg.550. 22 was committed within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon. In addition.00.455.00. Blg.P.P.900. 22 as they ordered payment of the checks to be stopped because the goods delivered were not those specified by them. 18 In the case at bench petitioners maintain that the prosecution failed to prove that any of the essential elements of the crime punishable under B. which were P63.00 and P51. 15 On appeal.752. similar sentences were imposed in Crim. In fact.455. Cases Nos. they were ordered to indemnify LINTON in the amount of P27. (c) neither could they be held liable for violating B. DATE PRESENTED REASON FOR DISHONOR 027683 22 July 1983 Payment Stopped (PS) 8 027684 23 July 1983 PS and Drawn Against Insufficient Fund (DAIF) 9 027699 24 Aug.P. 1983 PS and DAIF 11 027719 9 Aug.200. 1700-MN to 1705-MN except for the indemnities awarded. 1983 PS and DAIF 10 027700 5 Sept.P. Blg. Blg.P. and dishonored in Kalookan City. Cases Nos.00.00. In the decision of 18 September 1992 16 respondent Court of Appeals acquitted accused-appellants of estafa on the ground that indeed the checks were not made in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of their issuance. Case No. and. and dishonored by the drawee bank. of B. the accused assailed the decision as they imputed error to the trial court as follows: (a) the regional Trial Court of malabon had no jurisdiction over the cases because the offenses charged ere committed outside its territory. P51. respectively. He presented the bank ledger showing a balance of P65. 22 in its decision dated 25 January 1989. no evidence whatsoever supports the proposition that they knew that their checks were insufficiently funded. received by a collector of LINTON. Case No. Rosita Lim was not presented to testify because her statements would only be corroborative. They were also ordered to indemnify LINTON in the amount of P241. besides they had sufficient funds to pay the checks. and to pay the costs. In fine. The petition has no merit.000.00 and P37. Also. the trial court of Malabon exceeded its jurisdiction when it tried the case and rendered judgment thereon.00 respectively.75.00. 22. 22 punishes "[a]ny person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value.00 with all the accessory penalties provided for by law. P27.900.900. 17On 6 November 1992 their motion for reconsideration was denied. 1697-MN and 1698-MN except as to the indemnities awarded. Again. he claimed that he ordered SOLIDBANK to stop payment because the supplies delivered by LINTON were not in accordance with the specifications in the purchase orders. some of the checks were funded at the time of presentment but dishonored nonetheless upon their instruction to the bank to stop payment.800.800. In Crim.CHECK NO. P63. On the basis of the evidence thus presented the trial court held both accused guilty of estafa and violation of B.00. Section 1. 1983 DAIF 12 027720 16 Aug. 1696-MN they were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum plus one (1) year for each additional P10. par. delivered. They claim that what was proved was that all the elements of the offense were committed in Kalookan City. 1699-MN the trial court sentenced both accused to a straight penalty of one (1) year imprisonment with all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the costs.00.800. knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient . all in Kalookan City.

i. (d) petitioners had knowledge of the insufficiency of their funds in SOLIDBANK at the time the checks were issued. Under Sec. . the contract is revocable.e. 21 It is settled that venue in criminal cases is a vital ingredient of jurisdiction. specifically provides: Sec. without any valid reason. — (a) In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or anyone of the essential ingredients thereof took place. ordered the bank to stop payment . The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. (c) they were dishonored in Kalookan City. 23 There are certain crimes in which some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or territory and some in another.P. . What is of decisive importance is the delivery thereof. as a payee or indorsee thereof. (a). it is no longer necessary to discuss where the checks were dishonored. of the Revised Rules of Court. par. whether actual or constructive." Delivery of the check signifies transfer of possession. On the other hand. par. An undelivered bill or note is inoperative. 19 Thus. Blg. or the bearer thereof. it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case excludes the other. Navotas. which means "(t)he payee or indorsee of a bill or note. without any valid reason. Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The collector was not the person who could take the checks as a holder. in which event. a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed. Yabut 27 — . with the intent to transfer title thereto. 25 In determining proper venue in these cases. which has been carried over in Sec. . Place where action is to be instituted. The receipt of the checks by the collector of LINTON is not the issuance and delivery to the payee in contemplation of law. In other words. The place where the bills were written. Since there is no dispute that the checks were dishonored in Kalookan City. who is in possession of it." The gravamen of the offense is knowingly issuing a worthless check. And the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder. In People v. the term "holder" refers to the payee or indorsee of a bill or note who is in possession of it or the bearer thereof. (a). Navotas. As this Court further explained in People v. Neither could the collector be deemed an agent of LINTON with respect to the checks because he was a mere employee. Although LINTON sent a collector who received the checks from petitioners at their place of business in Kalookan City. 24 These are the so-called transitory or continuing crimes under which violation of B. the court of either has jurisdiction to try the cases. If all the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or territory. b) they were delivered to LINTON at the same place. from one person to another with intent to transfer titlethereto . 22 is categorized. 191 of the Negotiable Instruments Law the term "issue" means the first delivery of the instrument complete in form to a person who takes it as a holder. they were actually issued and delivered to LINTON at its place of business in Balut. . 15. ordered the bank to stop payment. or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the place where they were executed.. 14. Rule 110. . a fundamental element is knowledge on the part of the drawer of the insufficiency of his funds in 20 or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon presentment. which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer.funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. the court therein has the sole jurisdiction to try the case. Another essential element is subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer. . 22 Section 14. Yabut 26 this Court explained — . signed. and. Until delivery. the following acts material and essential to each crime and requisite to its consummation must be considered: (a) the seven (7) checks were issued to LINTON at its place of business in Balut.

. 31 We therefore sustain likewise the conviction of petitioners by the Regional Trial Court of Malabon for violation of B. But the supplies involved in that case were those of B." There was no special fiduciary relationship that permeated their dealings. and August 10.e. however. The Informations in the cases under consideration allege that the offenses were committed in the Municipality of Navotas which is controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the Regional Trial Court of Malabon. The two letters (Exhs. . Andan declared in that sworn testimony before the investigating fiscal that Yambao is but her "messenger" or "part-time employee. Grospe 28 citing People v. which were the subject of other purchase orders. Rodrigo 30 that venue or jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Information. Rather. They maintain that they had sufficient funds to cover the amount of the checks. The principal consents that the other party. Moreover. and the agent consents so as to act. neither did they make arrangements for payment in full by the drawee bank within five (5) banking days after receiving notices that the checks had not been paid by the drawee bank. Indeed. but also its nature and extent . venue or jurisdiction lies either in the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City or Malabon. The person alleging it has the burden of proof to show. as accused-appellants point out. were purchases of mild steel plates and "Z" purlins. Alicia P.1." Consequently. the agent. . contrary to the holding of the respondent Judges. Blg. whether the accused be within one territory or another. shall act on his behalf. we ruled in the same Grospe and Manzanilla cases as reiterated in Lim v.Modesto Yambao's receipt of the bad checks from Cecilia Que Yabut or Geminiano Yabut. the only question here is whether accused-appellants maintained funds sufficient to cover the amounts of their checks at the time of issuance and presentment of such checks. Manzanilla 29 we held that ". did not refer to the delivery of mild steel plates (6mm x 4 x 8) and "Z" purlins (16 x 7 x 2-1/2 mts) for which the checks in question were issued. i. knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds is by itself a continuing eventuality.. The law makes no presumption thereof. 21 and 22) dated July 23. the consent of both parties is essential. .P. be licitly taken as delivery of the checks to the complainant Alicia P. complaining against the quality of the goods delivered by the latter. not only the fact of its existence. 22 establishes a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds as follows — The making. shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon. C-10921) the complainant was held liable for actual damages because of the delivery of goods of inferior quality (Exh. pipes. InPeople v. Section 3 of B. Blg. 22 thus — Accused-appellants claim that they ordered payment of the checks to be stopped because the goods delivered were not those specified by them. when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check. Lally columns (Sch. reveal otherwise. while the purchases made by accused-appellants. in Caloocan City cannot. Blg. the letters referred to B. 22 provides that "notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop payment.P.I. Andan at Caloocan City to fix the venue there. for which they issued the checks in question. The prima facie evidence has not been overcome by petitioners in the cases before us because they did not pay LINTON the amounts due on the checks. The records of the bank. #20)." And there appears to be no contract of agency between Yambao and Andan so as to bind the latter for the acts of the former. Section 2 of B. 1983 which they claim they sent to Linton Commercial. as "payee" or "indorsee. He did not take delivery of the checks as holder.P. 23).. It must exist as a fact. For a contract of agency to exist. or makes arrangement for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. . drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the bank because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank. that in a case brought by them against the complainant in the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City (Civil Case No. Jr. It is true.

Lutero. and to pay the costs.the drawee bank shall state in the notice of dishonor that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of the check. CR No. the balance of accused-appellants' account was inadequate to cover the amounts of the checks. and CA-G. 07278 (RTC Crim. . 07279 (RTC Crim. both accused-appellants are hereby ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P27. Jr. November 3.900. Malcolm.R. CR No.R. 07281 (RTC Crim. CR No. CR No. 1705-MN). and In CA-G.R. 1703-MN) both accused are hereby ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P63.00. 1703-MN). 1700-MN). 1704-MN). Roman J. 07280 (RTC Crim. 07282 (RTC Crim." The purpose of this provision is precisely to preclude the maker or drawer of a worthless check from ordering the payment of the check to be stopped as a pretext for the lack of sufficient funds to cover the check. 1704-MN) both accused-appellants are hereby ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P51. the bank ledger of accused-appellants' account in Consolidated Bank shows that at the time the checks were presented for encashment. Case No.R. 07277 (RTC Crim. In CA-G.800. Case No.R. CR No. CA No. 32 . defendants-appellants. CA-G. Case No. CA-G.00 33 — as well as its resolution of 6 November 1992 denying reconsideration thereof. Case No. 1702-MN) both accused-appellants are hereby ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P27.R. Case No. if such be the fact. 07282 (RTC Crim. Case No. CR No. the Court finds the accused-appellants MANUEL LIM and ROSITA LIM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and are hereby sentenced to suffer a STRAIGHT PENALTY OF ONE (1) YEAR IMPRISONMENT in each case..550. CR No. Costs against petitioners. 1701-MN). Case No. JJ. No.00. 1699-MN). CA-G.: .R. concur.900.00. CR No. In CA-G. is AFFIRMED. together with all the accessory penalties provided by law. CR No. Lacson for appellee. . WHEREFORE.R. CR No.R. 1925 G. 1702-MN). 07278 (RTC Crim. J. In CA-G. Case No. 1705-MN) both accused-appellants are hereby ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P37. .R. Moreover. the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 18 September 1992 affirming the conviction of petitioners Manuel Lim and Rosita Lim — In CA-G.R. Case No. 1699-MN).200. Case No. CA-G. Lutero and Maza for appellants. Padilla. 07281 (RTC Crim.R. indicates not only that payment of the check was stopped but also that the reason for such order was that the maker or drawer did not have sufficient funds with which to cover the checks. vs. 07283 (RTC Crim Case No. CR No.455.. 07280 (RTC Crim. Davide. Jr. In CA-G. SO ORDERED.R CR No. 07277 (RTC Crim.. Case No.00.900. CA-G. Case No. plaintiff-appellee. 1700-MN) both accused-appellants are hereby ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P32. L-24224 THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK. the notice of dishonor issued by the drawee bank. 1701-MN) both accused-appellants are hereby ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P27. In CA-G. Kapunan and Hermosisima. CR No. . . 07283 (RTC Crim. In the case at bar. RAMON MAZA and FRANCISCO MECENAS. 07278 (RTC Crim.R.00. In CA-G. Case No.R.00.

we arrive at the same conclusion – that the defendants are liable. with interest at 9 per cent on twenty thousand pesos (P5) a day. pagaremos mancomunada y solidariamente a la orden del Philippine National Bank. The first error relates to the order of the trial judge refusing to require Enrique Echaus to become a party to the action.207.207. it is not evident that Echaus was an indispensable party.000) from September 23. but he is liable according to the face of his undertaking. or at the rate of P7. Jan.73.000) each. F. 1924. from whatever point of view we look at the case. that the defendants have not negotiated the promissory notes with the bank.. The law now is that the accommodation party can claim no benefit as such. nor have they received the value thereof. the makers of the negotiable instruments. Valor Recibido. A los tres meses de la fecha. it is. might negotiate them with the Philippine National Bank in case of need. The most plausible and reasonable stand for the defendants is that they are accommodation parties. I. Predicated on these premises. One of the above-mentioned notes. No. the same as if he were himself financially interested in the transaction. are still liable on the instruments. The other three error go to the merits and rest on the same foundation as the special defense. and with costs. On another assumption.The Philippine National Bank is suing Ramon Maza and Francisco Mecenas on five promissory notes of ten thousand pesos (P10. 1924. 340 Pagadero el 4/20/21 (Fdos. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally for a total of P65. As the defendants failed to duly except to the order.5 a day.F. which is a fact. and with interest at 9 per cent on thirty thousand pesos (P30. 1921. that the defendants are exactly what they appear to be. The special defense interposed by the defendants was that the promissory notes were sent in blank to them by Enrique Echaus with the request that they sign them so that he. 20. The three other notes due four months after date. To recover the amounts stated on the face of the notes with back interest. I. Iloilo. From the pleadings and the stipulation of facts. Iloilo. and that it was Enrique Echaus who negotiated the noted with the bank and who is accordingly the real party in interest and the party liable for the payment of the notes. la cantidad de diez mil (P10. Four errors are assigned by the defendants on appeal. fundamental that an instrument given without consideration does not create any obligation at law . Their liability on the instruments is primary and unconditional. 1921. The trial judge denied the motion. The three other notes due four months after date were executed by the same parties on January 21. the defendants having signed the instruments without receiving value therefor and for the purpose of lending their names to some other person. Defendants also moved that Echaus be ordered included as one of the defendants. The obligations with accumulated interest totaled P65. the principals must fulfill their obligations. due three months after date.) RAMOS MAZA FRANCISCO MECENAS The notes were not taken up by Maza and Mecenas at maturity. I. On the first assumption that Maza and Mecenas were the principals and Echaus the agent. of course. typical of the rest reads as follows: P10. as argued by counsel for the appellee.000) pesos en el Philippine National Bank. Moreover. Echaus. The defense is made to the action that the defendants never received the value of the promissory notes. but as accommodation parties. then they must keep their engagement and must pay as promised. action was begun by the Philippine National Bank in the court of first instance of Iloilo against Ramon Maza and Francisco Mecenas.73 on September 22. they are not now entitled to ask this court to review the ruling. F. 1921. it is deduced that the defendants admit the genuineness and due execution of the instruments sued on . Neither do the appellants point out any mistake in regard to the amount and interest that the lower court sentenced them to pay to the plaintiff bank. Maza and Mecenas executed two of the promissory notes on January 20.000ILOILO. Iloilo. or delivered them to the bank in payment of any preexisting debt.

1922 THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK.R. Casal & Ozaeta for appellant Picornell. Recto. No.: In a decision rendered January 9. J. defendants. BARTOLOME PICORNELL. it may properly be remarked that when the accommodation parties make payment to the holder of the notes.or in equity in favor of the payee. and the defendant Picornell by his having drawn such bill and received its value from the branch of the plaintiff bank in Cebu. constitutes the value of the tobacco at the date when the bill fell due. Tavera & Ventura company at Manila.. 1921. BARTOLOME PICORNELL. and amended by an order of February 18th next. Roman J.. now dissolved. to fasten liability upon an accommodation maker. The defendant Pardo de Tavera. together with his commission.790. Lacson for appellee. the Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced the defendants to pay solidarily to the plaintiff bank of the sum of P28. and the defendant Bartolome Picornell. vs. Tavera & Ventura company. since the relation between them is in effect that of principal and sureties. the price of which.11 with interest at 9 per centum per annum. No. they have the right to sue the accommodated party for reimbursement. Ostrand. JOAQUIN PARDO DE TAVERA.72.. The appellant Picornell contended that it should have been taken into . plaintiff-appellee. to pay said plaintiff the sum of P10. became liable upon the same bill. Tavera & Ventura. and costs. While perhaps unnecessary to this decision. appellant. L-18915 September 26. G. successor to Hyndman.708. J. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera alleged that the bill in question was without consideration and that judgment should not have been rendered against him. C. vs.. ET AL. . concur. by his having accepted the bill and denied payment thereof. appellant.82. Johns. the accommodation parties being the sureties. 1922.790. Camus and Delgado for appellant Pardo de Tavera. as appraised for the purpose. all as aforesaid. was received by him from the branch of the plaintiff bank in Cebu. is the proceeds received by the bank from the sale of a part of a certain quality of tobacco shipped by Picornell at Cebu to the Hyndman. However. and the defendant Pardo de Tavera to the extent of the value of the tobacco. From this judgment the defendants appealed. its only successor being the defendant Joaquin Pardo de Tavera. which the trial court ordered deducted from the value of the bill of exchange. BARTOLOME PICORNELL. notwithstanding the existence of a consideration which is the real value of the tobacco.82 from such amounts to be paid be the defendants. defendants. Street. The P28.R. which the defendants are sentenced to pay solidarily to the plaintiff bank. The reasoning of the trial court for fixing the respective responsibilities of the defendants is given in its decision and is as follows: . 1922 THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK. .739. against the firm of Hyndman. G. This total sum which the defendants are required to pay represents the value of a bill of exchange drawn by Bartolome Picornell in favor of the National Bank. plaintiff. JJ. Villamor. Avanceña. L-18751 September 26. Tavera & Ventura. it is not necessary that any consideration should move to him. The consideration which supports the promise of the accommodation maker is that parted with by the person taking the note and received by the person accommodated. ROMUALDEZ. the consignee of the tobacco.708. ET AL.72 with interest at the rate of 9 per centum per annum from May 3. deducting the sum of P6. Judgment affirmed with costs. the defendant Picornell to its full value. plaintiff-appellee. The sum of P6. and Villa-Real. and in consideration whereof he drew the bill from the central office of said bank in Manila and against the said Hyndman. Romualdez.

we believe that the necessary requirements in order that this court may pass upon questions of fact have been complied with by the appellants. The central office of the National Bank in Manila received the bill and the aforesaid documents annexed thereto. there was a certain portion which was no use and was damaged. TAVERA Y VENTURA Calle Soler 26 y 28. TABACO DEAR SIRS: Your letters of the 3d and 9th. drawn the following bill of exchange. that Picornell obtained from the branch of the National Bank in Cebu the sum of P39. 1920. The following facts are proved: That Bartolome Picornell. PICORNELL This instrument was delivered to the branch of the National Bank in Cebu. that the bank held the tobacco as a deposit. notifying him that of the tobacco received.735 bales of tobacco. Exhibit A: No. which was done by the company without the knowledge of the National Bank which retained and always had in its possession the invoice and bill of lading of the tobacco. The tobacco having arrived at Manila. the firm of Tambunting. that the bank was not authorized to sell the tobacco. Value received. received and the sample of tobacco sent through the captain of the boat Don Ildefonso. 1920. To these communications. HYNDMAN. that he had the right to complain because the bank consented to the said company taking possession of the tobacco before the payment of the bill. Hyndman. on February 27. For P39. member of the firm. inst. requested Hyndman. having. we believe. Messrs. sending the following letter: Cebu. Tavera & Ventura.) B. owner of the ship Don Ildefonso. 3d March.) J. To Sres. 1920. 2-A. The appellee bank maintains that the appellants have no right to discuss issues of fact in this instance for not having complied with the requirements enumerated in paragraph (a) of Rule 16 of the Rules of the Courts of First Instance. 2d April.account that he merely acted as an agent of Hyndman. that the condition "D/P" attached to the transaction was not modified. Tavera & Ventura. as required by section 89 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. bought in Cebu 1. (Sgd. Picornell answered. and on March 3. Tavera & Ventura to send for the goods. the value of the tobacco. as alleged by the said company. March 13. Hyndman. Tavera & Ventura proceeded to the examination of the tobacco. Tavera & Ventura. Tavera & Ventura at Manila. which condition was expressed by the well-known formula "D/P" (documents for [against] payment). 28 febrero. Pardo de Tavera. together with his commission of 1 real per quintal (according to stipulation Exhibit 4). following instruction of Hyndman. 1920.83 At treinta (30) days sight please pay this first of exchange (second unpaid) to the order of Philippine National Bank treinta y nueve mil quinientos veintinueve pesos con 83/100. The rule cited refers to special proceedings. Moreover. consigned to Hyndman. until it presented them as evidence at the trial. by (Sgd.529. Cebu. together with the invoice and bill of lading of the tobacco. which was shipped in the boat Don Ildefonso. and wrote and cable to Bartolome Picornell. Manila.529. . that brought the shipment.83. TAVERA & VENTURA. Tavera & Ventura except upon payment of the bill. The invoice and bill of lading were delivered to the National Bank with the understanding that the bank should not delivered them to Hyndman. which was deposited in their warehouses. presented the bill to Hyndman. who accepted it stating on the face thereof the following: Accepted. 1920. HYNDMAN. and your telegram of the 5th. in turn. said sale not being allowed either by law or by the circumstances that he should not have been ordered to pay the value of the bill without proof that he was notified of its dishonor. I wired to the seller asking him to come over and I hope he will do so at the first opportunity. Due. 1920. that the tobacco was not of inferior quality. Tavera & Ventura in all these transactions.

therefore. therefore. In view of the question raised by the said company as to the quality of the aforesaid tobacco.) J Pardo de Tavera.708. Hyndman. Yours very truly. Picornell learned that Hyndman. But the drawer and acceptor are the immediate parties to the consideration. 1920. does not concern the plaintiff bank. (Sgd. The bank protested the bill. . In a suit by him against the acceptor. and about September. Negotiable Instruments Law. . wrote on March 26.) The question whether or not the tobacco was worth the value of the bill. Yours very truly. and if possible that said information should be furnished by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. and if the acceptance be without consideration. . 1920.83). but did not pay it at its maturity. the drawer cannot recover of the acceptor. I remain. On the 4th of the same month.) B.It would be well that you should inform me of the exact number of bales deteriorated and useless. its value having been fixed at P28. upon the suggestion of the former. Tavera & Ventura sent a letter to the plaintiff bank as follows: DEAR SIRS: We very much regret to have to inform you that we absolutely refuse to pay draft No. Tavera & Ventura. and was such for value full and complete. therefore. Hyndman. wherefore Hyndman.790. more correspondence was exchange between the company and Picornell. beg to notify you that the said Lead Tobacco is at the disposal of your goodselves at our go-down No. The bank was a holder in due course. 2 for thirty-nine thousand five hundred and twenty-nine pesos and eighty-three cents (P39. Tavera & Ventura had in their possession the tobacco aforementioned. 26-36 Calle Soler. Cebu.235 quintals of Leaf Tobacco Barili. in a legal sense a remote party. Such partial want of consideration. he is in . Hyndman. if it was.) B.72. Tavera & Ventura company cannot escape liability in view of section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. (Sgd. does not exist with respect to the bank which paid to Picornell the full value of said bill of exchange. PICORNELL Through these communications. sold the tobacco. Tavera & Ventura reaccepted the bill in the following terms: Accepted for thirty days. J. 1920. owing to noncompliance of the contract by the drawer. Due May 2d. PICORNELL The bank granted this request of the defendants. The Hyndman. the question as to the consideration between the drawer and the acceptor cannot be inquired into. The payee or holder gives value to the drawer. Moreover. tool possession of the tobacco. May 2. By (Sgd. Tavera & Ventura company accepted it unconditionally. arrived and the bill was not paid. member of the firm.83 against Messrs. The payee holds a different relation. he is a stranger to the transaction between the drawer and the acceptor. We. The Hyndman.529. referring to 1.529. The drawee by acceptance becomes liable to the payee or his indorsee.82. DEAR SIRS: I would be obliged to you if you would wire your central office at Manila to extend thirty days the time for payment of the bill for P39. this letter: Messrs. Tavera & Ventura of Manila. to pay the same. (Sec. That this valuation was just. or that of its successor. Awaiting your favor.871. it would be well also that you should not sell any bale of said shipment until the matter is settled. and if he is ignorant of the equities between the drawer and the acceptor. who. This action is for the recovery of the value of the bill of exchange above-mentioned. reasonable and exact is not questioned by the parties. Philippine National Bank. wherefore its responsibility. is clear. and is. obtaining from the sale P6. Pardo de Tavera. and had it appraised on the 12th of the same month. 1921. 62. The bank brought this action. and also to the drawer himself.

upon their refusal to pay the bill. 1144. L. no question has been raised about this aspect of the responsibility of the defendants. Hence. C. with costs against the defendants. The title of the bank to the tobacco in question by reason of the condition "D/P" was that a pledgee. (3 R. not having been rebutted. Bartolome Picornell. in the purchase of the tobacco. J. Tavera & Ventura having been given possession of the tobacco before the payment of the bill affect the liability of the defendants to the bank thereon. or its successors. (Sec. 61. and upon which money has been advance by the plaintiff. it was not violated by the bank. Ostrand and Johns. By virtue of this circumstance. as above stated. which it exercised. (Sec. JJ. Concerning the notice to Picornell of the dishonor of the bill. which. Negotiable Instruments Law. he cannot exempt himself from responsibility by the fact of his having been a mere agent of this company. Negotiable Instruments Law. that it would be accepted upon proper presentment and paid in due course. 358. that the latter received it (secs. he warranted. . and this was admitted by Hyndman. the Hyndman. Besides. does not necessarily make him an agent of the company in its obligations arising from the drawing of the bill by him. Tavera & Ventura. Villamor. that the draft was accepted or the accommodation of the drawer. against the drawer. by its omission to appeal. His acts in negotiating the bill constitute a different contract from that made by his having purchased the tobacco on behalf of Hyndman. the bank had the right to deal with that tobacco as a security in case of non-payment of the bill. We are of the opinion that the appellants are liable to the National Bank for the value of the bill of exchange Exhibit A. it is no defense to a suit against the acceptor of a draft which has been discounted. Avanceña. But the bank. the presumption. and as it was not paid. 1143.. No.) As to Bartolome Picornell. which. . Furthermore. C. C. Araullo.J. Negotiable Instruments Law. L. Pardo de Tavera. Taking into account the circumstances of the case. We hold that it is one of those cases provided for by law (sec. Malcolm.82 the proceeds of the sale of the tobacco. accepted the bill and is primarily liable for the value of the negotiable instrument. 106. Tavera & Ventura was of the same nature -. contradicted. Upon the non-payment of the bill by the drawee-acceptor. we cannot alter it in favor of said party. 1145. as to the price obtained in the sale. it appears from Exhibit C. we fold that the bank did not violate the law in making such sale without notice.. now conclusive. yet it cannot have upon the responsibility of both to the bank. (3. 105. Street. which is the plaintiff bank. pp. Neither does the fact of Hyndman. par. (Sec.) The fact that Picornell was a commission agent of Hyndman.) The fact that the tobacco was or was not of inferior quality does not affect the responsibility of Picornell. 2938). the tobacco in question. 84. the bank had the right of recourse. 33.. Tavera & Ventura. as drawer of the bill. as it did. because while it may an effect upon the contract between him and the firm of Hyndman. As to the instruction "D/P" appearing on the instrument. So ordered. because nothing to this effect was indicated or added to his signature on signing the bill. R. has shown full conformity with the judgment rendered. pp. which it was authorized to accept and retail. Tavera & Ventura company.) The drawee. Tavera & Ventura. .. he became liable to the payment of its value to the holder thereof. (Act No. no question is made that it was the best obtainable. deducting therefrom P6. 20. and its possession after its delivery to it by Hyndman. 1144. . kept possession of the invoice and the bill of lading of the tobacco. while the drawer. the judgment appealed from is affirmed. upon the bill drawn and accepted as above stated. Act. or at least. Negotiable Instruments Law).a discount security.) The appellants question the power of the bank to sell. they placed the tobacco at the disposal of the bank. 2938. which is to protest for the non-payment thereof.the position on a bona fide indorsee. concur.) However. For the foregoing. is secondarily liable. that a copy of such protest was sent by mail in good season addressed to Bartolome Picornell. not having appealed from the judgment of the lower court. Tavera & Ventura when.708. wherein a previous notice of the sale is not indispensable.