PNB V.

PICORNELL
46 PHIL 716
ROMUALDEZ, J.
FACTS:
Picornell followed the instructions of Hyndman, Tavera and Venutra by buying
bales of tobacco. He was able to obtain in National Bank a sum of money together with his
commission. He drafted a bill of exchange against the firm and in favor of the bank. It was
received by National Bank and was accepted thereafter by the firm. However, on alleged
conditions of the tobacco, the bill of exchange was not paid.
ISSUE: Is Picornell liable for the amount in the instrument?
HELD:
Yes, the respondent is liable.
The firm accepted the bill unconditionally but did not pay it at maturity, wherefore its
responsibility to pay the same is clear. The question whether tobacco was worth the value of the
bill doesn’t concern the bank. Such partial want of consideration, if it was, doesn’t exist with
respect to the bank which paid Picornell the full value of the said bill of exchange. The bank was
a holder in due course and was such for value full and complete.
The firm cannot escape liability.