You are on page 1of 9

Phil. Commercial And International Bank v.

CA

These consolidated petitions arose from the action filed by BIR against Citibank and PCIBank for the recovery of
the amount of Citibank Check Numbers SN-10597 and 16508. Said checks, both crossed checks were alleged to
have been negotiated fraudulently by an organized syndicate between and among two employees of Ford (General
Ledger Accountant and his assistant), and PCIBank officers.
It was established that instead of paying the crossed checks, containing two diagonal lines on its upper left corner
between which were written the words payable to the payees account only, to the CIR for the settlement of the
appropriate quarterly percentage taxes of Ford, the checks were diverted and encashed for the eventual distribution
among the members of the syndicate. Citibank Check No. SN-10597 amounted to P5,851,706.37, while Citibank
Check No. SN-16508 amounted to P6,311,591.73.
It was found that the pro-manager of San Andres Branch of PCIBank, Remberto Castro, received Citibank Check
Numbers SN 10597 and 16508. He passed the checks to a co-conspirator, an Assistant Manager of PCIBanks
Meralco Branch, who helped Castro open a Checking account of a fictitious person named Reynaldo Reyes. Castro
deposited a worthless Bank of America Check in exactly the same amount of Ford checks. The syndicate tampered
with the checks and succeeded in replacing the worthless checks and the eventual encashment of Citibank Check
Nos. SN 10597 and 16508. The PCIBank Pro-manager, Castro, and his co-conspirator Assistant Manager apparently
performed their activities using facilities in their official capacity or authority but for their personal and private gain
or benefit.

Issue: W/N Ford Can Recover From Pcib [Collecting Bank] And Citibank [Drawee Bank] The Value Of The
Checks Intended As Payment To The CIR?

HELD Having established that the collecting bank’s negligence is the proximate cause of the loss, the SC concluded
that PCIB is liable in the amount corresponding to the proceeds of the Citibank checks.

However, the court also held that although a bank is liable for the wrongful acts of its officers within the course of
their employment, PCIB appears also to be the victim of the scheme hatched by the syndicate. Therefore, the
responsibility for negligence does not lie on PCIB alone.

The evidence showed that Citibank as drawee bank was likewise negligent in failing to establish that its payment of
Ford’s checks were madie in due course and legally in order. As ruled by the CA, Citibank must likewise answer for
the damages because of the contractual relationship it breached with Ford in failing to scrutinize the checks before
paying to PCIB. Citibank had failed to ensure that the amount of the checks be paid only to its designated payee, the
CIR. The fact that the drawee bank did not discover the irregularity seasonably, constitutes negligence in carrying
out the bank’s duty to its depositors. The court ruled that PCIB and Citibank must share the loss on a 50-50 ratio.

De Ocampo v. Gatchalian

Manuel Gonzales offered to sell a car to Anita Gatchalian, who was looking for a car for her
husband’s use. Manuel represent
ed that he was duly authorized by Ocampo Clinic, the car
owner, to look for buyer, negotiate and accomplish the sale of the car. Anita requested Manuel
to bring the car and Certificate of Registration for her husband to see; but Manuel said that he
can bring the car on the condition that Anita gives him a check to show to the owner as
evidence of Anita’s good faith in the intention to buy the car.

Anita gave Manuel a check in the amount of P600, on the condition that the check will only be
for safekeeping and will be returned to her the following day when the car and Certficate of
Registration will be brought by Manuel.

Manuel failed to appear the following day, so Anita issued a Stop Payment Order on the
check with the drawee bank, which was issued without previous notice to holder.

Manuel delivered the check to Ocampo Clinic. The lower court held that defendant should pay plaintiff.00 from Associated Bank to another bank but he realized that he does not want to be carrying that cash so he bought a cashier’s check from Associated Bank worth P800. it is immaterial that he was the payee and an immediate party to the instrument. De Ocampo should have inquired as to the legal title of Manuel to the said check. in payment of the hospitalization expenses of his wife. He needed to transfer P800. Vicente de Ocampo sued Manuel for estafa for not paying his obligations to the Ocampo Clinic and for receiving the cash balance of the check ISSUE Whether or not De Ocampo is a holder in due course. entrusted it to Albert Uy for the later to safe keep it. When asked how Mesina got hold of the check. Mesina had therefore notice of the defect of his title over the check from the start. that the check did not correspond to Matilde Gonzales’ obligation with the clinic because of the fact that it was for P600. Gonzales claimed that he was authorized by the plaintiff to sell the car. Mesina became the holder of the cashier’s check as endorsed by Alexander Lim who stole the check. Jose Go learned that the check was stolen son he made a stop payment order against the check. Gonzales order defendant to issue a cross-check to comply on showing interest in buying the car. Plaintiff should have asked questions to further inquire upon suspicion. Vicente R.000. in which defendant refused citing that plaintiff is a not a holder in due course.00. the check was presented by a certain Marcelo Mesina for payment.00 – more than the indebtedness. Gatchalian Anita Gatchalian was interested in buying a car. Section 52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law The Supreme Court emphasized that if one is such a holder in due course. Associated Bank dishonored the check. paid the check to him for “a certain transaction”. The fact that Gatchalian has no obligation to De Ocampo and yet he’s named as the payee in the check hould have apprised De Ocampo. Plaintiff failed to exercise prudence and caution. The holder of a cashier’s check who is not a holder in due course cannot enforce such check against the issuing bank which dishonors the same. The Supreme Court however ruled that De Ocampo is not a holder in due course for his lack of good faith. The check was however stolen from Uy by a certain Alexander Lim. The check in question suffers from the infirmity of not having been properly negotiated and for value by Jose Go who is the real owner of said instrument. There were obvious instances to show that the check was negligently acquired like plaintiff having no liability with defendant and that the check was crossed. HELD: No. Mesina v IAC Jose Go maintains an account with Associated Bank. .000. Apparently. Meanwhile. when he found the check. Gonzales promised to return the check the next day.Meanwhile. who’s already at large. Vicente de Ocampo gave Manuel change of P158. De Ocampo V. ISSUE: Whether or not Mesina is a holder in due course. Matilde Gonzales. She found out that Gonzales used the check as payment to plaintiff's clinic for his wife's fees. defendant issue a stop payment order on the check. Mesina however refused to say how and why it was passed to him. Plaintiff now demands defendant for payment of the check.25 difference of P600 value of check less P441. The bank manager. he merely stated that Alfredo Lim. Associated Bank received the subject check from Prudential Bank for clearing. Manuel Gonzales offered to her a car owned by plaintiff. When Gonzales never appeared after. ISSUE: Whether or not De Ocampo is a holder in due cour\ Held The SC held that plaintiff is a not a holder in due course. HELD: No. Admittedly.75 total hospitalization fees. Associated Bank then issued the check but Jose Go forgot to get the check so it was left on top of the desk of the bank manager. that why was Manuel in possession of the check – all these gave De Ocampo the duty to ascertain from the holder Manuel Gonzales what the nature of the latter’s title to the check was or the nature of his possession.

Section 52 of the NIL provides what constitutes a holder in due course. the latter’s rights are based on a negotiable instrument and assuming further that the petitioner’s defense may not prevail against it. No. Thereafter. Simultaneously. When Moulic failed to sell the jewellry. was a holder of the check in due course Held: Yes. Petitioner was issued a sales invoice for the two used tractors. in which case. And as such. bought the checks from Victoriano before the due dates. Before the maturity date Moulic withdrew her funds from the bank contesting that she incurred no obligation on the checks because the jewellery was never sold and the checks are negotiated without her knowledge and consent. the deed of sale with chattel mortgage with promissory note was issued. assuming the note is negotiable. A prima facie presumption exists that a holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course. Thus. Moulic failed to prove the contrary. through its sister company Industrial Products Marketing. The seller sent mechanics but the tractors were not repaired accordingly as they were no longer serviceable. The promissory note in question lacks the so- called words of negotiability. Consolidated Plywood Industries Inc v IFC Leasing and Acceptance Corp FACTS: Petitioner bought from Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company. two used tractors. This liability as a general rule extends to the corporation to whom it assigned its rights and interests unless the assignee is a holder in due course of the promissory note in question. Salas v. that State Investment House Inc. the checks were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The promissory note in question is not a negotiable instrument. two postdated checks in the amount of fifty thousand each. she returned it to Victoriano before the maturity of the checks. the tractors broke down. CA. Issues: 1. Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corp . Upon presentment of for payment.The presumption of good faith did not apply to plaintiff because the defect was apparent on the instruments face – it was not payable to defendant or bearer. the seller assigned the deed of sale with chattel mortgage and promissory note to respondent. Victoriano negotiated the checks to State Investment House. Petitioner would delay the payments on the promissory notes until the seller completes its obligation under the warranty. However. Moulic can only invoke this defense against the petitioner if it was a privy to the purpose for which they were issued and therefore is not a holder in due course. The used tractors were then delivered but barely 14 days after. ISSUE – Whether or not it constitutes a promissory note HELD: It is patent that the seller is liable for the breach in warranty against the petitioner. as security for pieces of jewellery to be sold on commission. Thereafter. The evidence shows that: on the faces of the post dated checks were complete and regular. the checks cannot be retrieved as they have been negotiated. and there was no knowledge with regard that the checks were issued as security and not for value. Whether or not State Investment House inc. State Investment House v. that it was taken in good faith and for value. a collection suit was filed against petitioner for the payment of the promissory note. At the same time. IAC FACTS Nora Moulic issued to Corazon Victoriano. Inc. it follows that the respondent can never be a holder in due course but remains merely an assignee of the note in question. the petitioner may raise against the respondents all defenses available to it against the seller.

[b] it contains an unconditional promise to pay the amount of P58. Held: There can be no doubt that when the plaintiff gave the certificates of deposit for the notes it took the notes for "value" within the meaning of sections 52 and 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Law — the other conditions necessary to make it a holder in due course being present.K.Juanita Salas bought a motor vehicle from the Violago Motor Sales Corporation as evidenced by a promissory note. 1920. for the full amount of the notes. certificate of registration and deed of chattel mortgage. there being no other evidence to . It was negotiated by indorsement in writing on the instrument itself payable to the Order of Filinvest Finance and Leasing Corporation and it is an indorsement of the entire instrument. there appears to be no question that Filinvest is a holder in due course Accordingly. no contract ever existed between her and VMS and therefore none had been assigned in favor of private respondent. Petitioner defaulted in her installments allegedly due to a discrepancy in the engine and chassis numbers of the vehicle delivered to her and those indicated in the sales invoice.20. having complied with the requisites under the law as follows: [a] it is in writing and signed by the maker Juanita Salas. [c] it is payable at a fixed or determinable future time which is "P1. hence.95 monthly for 36 months due and payable on the 21 st day of each month starting March 21. This failure to pay prompted Filinvest Finance to initiate a civil action for a sum of money against petitioner before the RTC-San Fernando. the CA affirmed the decision. On this petition. signed by defendant and payable 6 months after date to Wyoming Livestock Loan Company. We think the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff was a holder in due course of the notes was supported by the evidence. there can be no doubt that proof that the First National Bank of Cody was the endorsee and holder of the certificates of deposit was a prima facie showing that it was a holder in due course. [e] the drawee is named or indicated with certainty. or order and as such. If the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the presumptions declared by these statutes particularly the presumption stated in the first clause of section 59 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Under the circumstances. The trial court favored petitioner and ordered Salas to pay the amount. The notes were dated July 21. and free from defenses available to prior parties among themselves. A careful study of the questioned promissory note shows that it is a negotiable instrument. Dubois State Bank This is an action by the Dubois State Bank as endorsee against the defendant as maker of two promissory notes. Pennoyer v. Issue: W/N the plaintiff was a holder in due course of the notes. Issue: Whether the promissory note in question is a negotiable instrument which will bar completely all the available defenses of the petitioner against private respondent. she prayed for a reversal of the trial court's decision so that she may be absolved from the obligation under the contract on the ground that the provision of the law on sales by description is applicable here. On July 22. the plaintiff purchased the notes. Pampanga. The defendant bought the stock at the solicitation of G.O. They were given in payment for capital stock of Wyoming Livestock Loan Company. and sufficient to justify a finding of that fact. 1980 thru and inclusive of Feb. and cannot be disturbed.138. 1983.614. and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof. Jones. to whom the notes were delivered. imputing fraud." [d] it is payable to Violago Motor Sales Corporation. Petitioner cannot set up against respondent the defense of nullity of the contract of sale between her and VMS. bad faith and misrepresentation against VMS for having delivered a different vehicle to petitioner. 21. HELD: No. respondent corporation holds the instrument free from any defect of title of prior parties. This note was subsequently endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation which financed the purchase. The plaintiff gave for the notes its negotiable certificates of deposit payable to the order of the Wyoming Livestock Loan Company. which fact she discovered when the vehicle figured in an accident on 9 May 1980. Roy and A. 1920.

98. the remaining balance of the contract price should be applied to the loan. were mere guarantors of Reyes. it is indisputable that the spouses signed the promissory note to enable Reyes to secure a loan from the bank. which entitled the latter to cancel the mortgage contract. Town Savings and Loan Bank Inc. indicating the request that the check be released by the bank. ISSUE: Whether they were liable as accommodation parties HELD: An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker. drawer. a deed of assignment was made by Toribio. The fact that the notes in suit had been procured by fraud. After some persuasion. . In the case at bar. The spouses denied having any liability.require a different finding. It was also signed by them. For failure to pay their monthly payments. but we cannot believe that it had the effect of destroying presumptions in favor of the First National Bank of Cody as the holder of the certificates of deposit. when established. conditioned however that they should be for labor and materials. They stated that the real party-in- interest is the sister of the husband. there was a change in the conditions of the contract without the knowledge of appellants. they protested against being dragged into the litigation. Such person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value. averring that the account was long overdue. at the time of the taking of the instrument knew him to be an accommodation party. Prudencio v. the accommodation party is in effect a surety for the latter. She was the actual beneficiary of the loan and the spouses accommodated her by signing the note. This notwithstanding. He receives no part of the consideration for the instrument but assumes liability to the other parties thereto because he wants to accommodate another. The promissory note covering the “second loan” was signed by their relative. which was secured by a promissory note. the appellants amended the mortgage wherein the terms and conditions of the original mortgage was made an integral part of the new mortgage. indorser. v CA FACTS: Spouses Hipolito applied for and was granted a loan by the bank. without receiving value therefore and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. In lending his name to the accommodated party. 105). not having received part of the loan. He lends his name to enable the accommodated party to obtain credit or to raise money. as it must be in this case. On a later date. they were approached by their relative who was the attorney-in-fact of a construction company. the appellants wrote to the PNB that since the latter has authorized payments to the company instead of on account of the loan guaranteed by the mortgage. The trial court held that they were liable as accommodation parties to the promissory note. they were declared in default. The spouses. the Bureau with approval of the bank. assigning all the payments to the Bureau to the construction company. notwithstanding such holder. After the amendment of the mortgage was executed. The company abandoned the work and as consequence. 30 Wyo. made three payments to the company. CA FACTS: Appellants are the owners of a property. Abbott. Later on. Pilarita Reyes. The last request was denied by the bank. destroyed the presumption that plaintiff was a holder in due course of the notes (Glendo State Bank v. which was in dire need of funds for the completion of a municipal building. which they mortgaged to help secure a loan of a certain Domingo Prudencio. As such. This was reversed by the Court of Appeals. the Bureau rescinded the contract and assumed the work. or assumed.

The trial court held that consignation wasn't applicable to the case at bar but was reversed by the CA. to accommodate its clients Spouses Ong. This is because the issue or indorsement of another is ultra vires. As such. There has to be another basis for their claim of having been freed from their obligation. ISSUE: Whether they were an accommodation party HELD: Petitioner averred that it is not Santos who is the accommodation party to the instrument but the corporation itself. Milagros Pamintuan. Maniego may also be deemed an “accommodation party” in the light of the facts (i. or both. As the compromise agreement wasn't approved during the expected period of time. Bernares and Santos for violation of BP22. one who has taken the instrument with knowledge of the accommodation . or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it. Pamintuan and Maniego were indicted for the crime of malversation. The rule on accommodation party doesn't include or apply to corporations which are accommodation parties. Ubay was found guilty while Maniego was acquitted. petitioners would be primarily and unconditionally liable on the promissory note to a holder for value. This prompted the petitioner to file a case against Atty. he will pay the amount thereof to the holder. Both. Santos tried to tender a cashier’s check for the value of the dishonored check but petitioner refused to accept such. Maniego appealed.50 to the government. It has to be determined if PNB was a holder for value. with the understanding that upon approval of the compromise agreement. while Pamintuan fled to the United States. then in the official custody of Lt. during the preliminary investigation. the aforesaid check was replaced with another one for the same value. Held: Under the law. Consequently. regardless of whether they stand as sureties or solidary co-debtors since such distinction would be entirely immaterial and inconsequential as far as a holder for value is concerned. People v Maniego Facts: Julia Maniego was an indorser of several checks drawn by her sister. were ordered to pay in solidum the amount of P57. the check will be encashed accordingly. although she has the right. Hence. CA FACTS: The president of Movers Enterprises. engaged that on due presentment. according to its tenor. Crisologo Jose v. and that if it be dishonored. notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew her to be only an accommodation party. which were dishonored after they had been exchange with cash belonging to the Government. Among the parties liable thereon is an indorser of the instrument. without receiving value for the same). Such an indorser who indorses without qualification.e. it cannot be held liable to the check issued in favor of petitioner. she is liable on the instrument to a holder for value.Issue: whether they were accommodation party Held There is no question that as accommodation makers. Rizalino Ubay. But assuming arguendo that the corporation is the accommodation party. This was consigned by Santos with the clerk of court and he instituted charges against petitioner. Meanwhile. This was in consideration of a quitclaim by petitioner over a parcel of land. the instrument shall be accepted or paid. however. the holder or last indorsee of a negotiable instrument has the right to enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof against all parties liable thereon. Ubay and Maniego were arraigned. after paying the holder. inter alia. Upon deposit though of the checks by petitioner. issued a check in favor of petitioner Crisologo-Jose.434. the petitioners cannot claim to have been released from their obligation simply because at the time of payment of such obligation was temporarily deferred by the PNB without their knowledge and consent. which the GSIS agreed to sell to spouses Ong. Issue: Whether Maniego is liable even if she is a mere indorser. Ubay. to obtain reimbursement from the party accommodated. it was dishonored. and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken.

Gueson in his answer alleged that he was just an accommodation party in favor of Caneda. that there was a novation in the form of substitution of debtors when Caneda executed the undertaking assuming the liability of Gueson in favor of FNCB. This loan was to cover for the payment of P1. CA Gueson for value received.000 in shares of stock. he executed a chattel mortgage and used a Toyota Jiffy jeep as collateral. They stipulated under a Memorandum of Agreement that the terms of payment would be P1. v. FNCB’s only concern is the payment of the loan. That to secure the obligation. the vendee authorized the vendor to obtain a loan from the financier on which the vendee bound itself to pay for. Nonetheless. Thereafter. executed a promissory note in favor of Caneda. Caneda confirmed that he was indeed the true debtor. only in this case.000. while Gueson merely accommodated Caneda in signing the promissory note and executing the chattel mortgage. Whatever agreement Gueson and Caneda had is binding only as between them. Thus. However. Petitioner Soriano signed as maker the promissory notes payable to the bank. an addendum was executed between them. notwithstanding the fact that such holder at the time of the taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party. it sought to go after Caneda.000. without receiving value therefore. qualifying the cash payment. he is still liable to FNCB as a holder for value w/ a right to be reimbursed by the accommodated party. the petitioners failed to pay the obligations as they were due. he is entitled to obtain reimbursement from the party accommodated. . Even if Gueson was a mere accommodation party. P2.000 in cash.000. FNCB chose to go after Caneda. and the balance would be payable in monthly installments. The bank gave ample time to petitioners then to satisfy their obligations. During that time. that it is expressly provided for in the promissory note that in case of default in any installment would deem that whole obligation demandable. This promissory note was later assigned to FNCB. is such as to charge the indorsee with the knowledge that the issue or indorsement of the instrument by the corporation is for the accommodation of another. Despite demands on Gueson. The trial court held in favor of the bank. and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person is liable to the instrument to a holder for value. Agro Conglomerates v Soriano FACTS: Petitioner sold to Wonderland Food Industries two parcels of land. The trial court held that Gueson was indeed an accommodation party in favor of Caneda. Instead of cash payment. he failed and refused to pay. after paying the holder.nature thereof cannot recover against a corporation where it is only an accommodation party. Caneda Jr. This addendum was not notarized. If the form of the instrument. the bank was in financial distress and this prompted it to endorse the promissory notes for collection. prayed for the payment of the outstanding balance plus interest. drawer. In signing the undertaking. This was denied by Caneda. and in the alternative. It may go after either Gueson or Caneda – in this case. Issue: Whether Gueson was a mere accommodation party to Caneda who is the real debtor HELD: Caneda merely confirmed that he was the real debtor of FNCB in the undertaking signed. he cannot recover against the corporation thereon.000. promising to pay monthly installments with interest per annum. or the nature of the transaction. it has been ruled that one who signs as maker. acceptor or indorser. that the phrase “with recourse to Gueson in case of default” found in the undertaking was inserted only after Caneda and FNCB had already signed the undertaking and without the knowledge of Gueson and that Caneda was in bad faith when it tried to evade payment of a justly-secured legal obligation. Gueson then defaulted in his obligation and had an outstanding balance. It didn't find merit to the contention that Wonderland was the one to be held liable for the promissory notes. This prompted FNCB to file an action for replevin and sum of money.

drawer. has or has not received anything in payment of the use of his name. it was the Asset Privatization Trust which had the authority to enforce its claims against both debtors accommodation party as a person "who has signed the instrument as maker. P20. Despite repeated demands for payment. without his knowledge and consent the bank imposed new and additional stipulations on interest. purchased various spare parts from Auto Plus Traders. penalties. Inc. Furthermore. there was confusion in the persons of the principal debtor and surety. he is a solidary co-debtor.000 Tomas Ang: bank is not the real party in interest as it is not the holder of the promissory notes. plus P30." As gleaned from the text. particularly petitioner.000 for moral and exemplary damages. acceptor. Ang v. much less a holder for value or a holder in due course. and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. 1990 Antonio Ang Eng Liong only admitted to have secured a loan amounting to P80. (2) he must not receive value therefor. or indorser.96 as of July 31. and (3) he must sign for the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person petitioner signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor.Issue: whether petitioners are accommodation parties HELD: Yes. they failed to settle their obligations totalling to P539. respectively. without receiving value therefor. services charges and attorney's fees more onerous than the terms of the notes.000. as it turned out. immaterial so far as the bank is concerned whether one of the signers. 1988 and September 9. and attorney's fees. Bautista. 1986. They have the right after paying the instrument to seek reimbursement from the party accommodated. Auto Plus Traders Inc FACTS: • Claude P. Bautista V. With the rescission. or indorser. acceptor. an accommodation party is one who meets all the three requisites. signing as maker. even if the accommodated party receives an extension of the period for payment without the consent of the accommodation party. drawer. Associated Bank Facts Associated Bank (formerly Associated Banking Corporation and now known as United Overseas Bank Philippines) filed a collection suit against Antonio Ang Eng Liong (principal debtor) and petitioner Tomas Ang (co-maker) for the 2 promissory notes.638. since the liability of an accommodation party remains not only primary but also unconditional to a holder for value. without his knowledge and consent he should be reimbursed by his co-defendant any and all sums that he may be adjudged liable to pay. the contract of surety between Woodland and petitioner was extinguished by the rescission of the contract of sale of the farmland.000 and P50. the latter is still liable for the whole obligation and such extension does not release him because as far as a holder for value is concerned. the loan was granted to the principal debtor already constitutes a sufficient consideration. ISSUE: W/N Ang is liable as accomodation party even without consideration and his co-accomodation party was granted accomodation w/o his knowledge HELD: CA AFFIRMED At the time the complaint was filed in the trial court. The addendum thereon likewise lost its efficacy. the latest on September 13. since the relation between them has in effect became one of principal and surety. in his capacity as President and Presiding Officer of Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation (Cruiser). 22 were filed with the MTCC . the bank knew that he did not receive any valuable consideration for affixing his signatures on the notes but merely lent his name as an accommodation party bank granted his co-defendant successive extensions of time within which to pay. viz: (1) he must be a party to the instrument. (Auto Plus) and issued 2 postdated checks • The checks were subsequently dishonored 2 Informations for violation of BP Blg.

drawer.• MTCC: Cruiser directed to pay the Auto Plus • • CA Affirmed RTC: Bautista personally issued the check • According to Auto Plus. petition is GRANTED. drawer. But. Nonetheless. Generally this Court. however. or indorser. has no jurisdiction over questions of facts. Bautista.500 was drawn against the current account of Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation. we are compelled to settle this issue. acceptor. by issuing his check to cover the obligation of the corporation. we sustain the factual finding of the RTC. without receiving value therefor. . and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person requisites he must be a party to the instrument. became an accommodation party ISSUE: W/N Bautista as an officer of the corporation. There is no agreement that petitioner shall be held liable for the corporation's obligations in his personal capacity. remains liable for the checks especially since there is no evidence that the debts covered by the subject checks have been paid. he cannot be held liable for the value of the 2 checks issued in payment for the corporation's obligation Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law accommodation party a person "who has signed the instrument as maker. in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Hence. signing as maker. 2 check return slips in conjunction with the Current Account Statements would show that the check for P151.200 was drawn against the current account of Claude Bautista while the check for P97. Hence.present he must sign for the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person - lacking Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation. Criminal Case DISMISSED Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law accommodation party is liable on the instrument to a holder for value Private respondent adds that petitioner should also be liable for the value of the corporation check because instituting another civil action against the corporation would result in multiplicity of suits and delay. is personally and civilly liable for the 2 checks HELD: NO. appellate court in error for affirming the decision of the RTC holding petitioner liable for the value of the checks considering that he was acquitted of the crime charged and that the debts are clearly corporate debts for which only Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation should be held liable. or indorser -present he must not receive value therefor . CA REVERSED and SET ASIDE. considering that the findings of the MTCC and the RTC are at variance. acceptor.