PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
ROMEO C. GARCIA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
154127
December 8, 2003
-versus-
DIONISIO V.
LLAMAS,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Novation cannot
be presumed. It must be clearly shown either by the express assent of
the
parties or by the complete incompatibility between the old and the new
agreements. Petitioner herein fails to show either requirement
convincingly;
hence, the summary judgment holding him liable as a joint and solidary
debtor stands.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case
Before us is a Petition
for Review[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, seeking to nullify the November 26, 2001 Decision[2]
and the June 26, 2002 Resolution[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 60521. The appellate court
disposed as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"UPON THE VIEW WE
TAKE
OF THIS CASE, thus, the judgment appealed from, insofar as it pertains
to [Petitioner] Romeo Garcia, must be, as it hereby is, AFFIRMED,
subject
to the modification that the award for attorney's fees and cost of suit
is DELETED. The portion of the judgment that pertains to x
x x Eduardo de Jesus is SET ASIDE and VACATED. Accordingly,
the case against x x x Eduardo de Jesus is REMANDED
to
the court of origin for purposes of receiving ex parte Respondent
Dionisio
Llamas' evidence against x x x Eduardo de
Jesus."[4]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The challenged
Resolution,
on the other hand, denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The Antecedents
The antecedents of the
case are narrated by the CA as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"This case
started out as a complaint for sum of money and damages by .
Respondent Dionisio Llamas against . Petitioner
Romeo
Garcia and Eduardo de Jesus. Docketed as Civil Case No. Q97-32-873, the
complaint alleged that on 23 December 1996, petitioner and de Jesus
borrowed
P400,000.00 from respondent; that, on the same day, they executed a
promissory
note wherein they bound themselves jointly and severally to pay the
loan
on or before 23 January 1997 with a 5% interest per month; that the
loan
has long been overdue and, despite repeated demands, petitioner and de
Jesus have failed and refused to pay it; and that, by reason of their
unjustified
refusal, respondent was compelled to engage the services of counsel to
whom he agreed to pay 25% of the sum to be recovered from petitioner
and
de Jesus, plus P2,000.00 for every appearance in court. Annexed to the
complaint were the promissory note above-mentioned and a demand letter,
dated 02 May 1997, by respondent addressed to petitioner and de Jesus.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Resisting the
complaint,
Petitioner Garcia, in his Answer, averred that he assumed no liability
under the promissory note because he signed it merely as an
accommodation
party for . de Jesus; and, alternatively, that he
is relieved from any liability arising from the note inasmuch as the
loan
had been paid by . de Jesus by means of a check dated
17
April 1997; and that, in any event, the issuance of the check and
respondent's
acceptance thereof novated or superseded the note.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Respondent
tendered
a reply to Petitioner Garcia's answer, thereunder asserting that the
loan
remained unpaid for the reason that the check issued by .
de Jesus bounced, and that Petitioner Garcia's answer was not even
accompanied
by a certificate of non-forum shopping. Annexed to the reply were the
face
of the check and the reverse side thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"For his
part, . de Jesus asserted in his Answer with Counterclaim
that
out of the supposed P400,000.00 loan, he received only P360,000.00, the
P40,000.00 having been advance interest thereon for two months, that
is,
for January and February 1997; that, in fact, he paid the sum of
P120,000.00
by way of interests; that this was made when respondent's daughter, one
Nits Llamas-Quijencio, received from the Central Police District
Command
at Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila (where x x x
de
Jesus worked), the sum of P40,000.00, representing the peso equivalent
of his accumulated leave credits, another P40,000.00 as advance
interest,
and still another P40,000.00 as interest for the months of March and
April
1997; that he had difficulty in paying the loan and had asked
respondent
for an extension of time; that respondent acted in bad faith in
instituting
the case, respondent having agreed to accept the benefits he (de Jesus)
would receive for his retirement, but respondent nonetheless filed the
instant case while his retirement was being processed; and that, in
defense
of his rights, he agreed to pay his counsel P20,000.00 as attorney's
fees,
plus P1,000.00 for every court appearance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"During the
pre-trial
conference, . de Jesus and his lawyer did not
appear,
nor did they file any pre-trial brief. Neither did Petitioner Garcia
file
a pre-trial brief, and his counsel even manifested that he would no
longer
present evidence. Given this development, the trial court gave
respondent
permission to present his evidence ex parte against .
de
Jesus; and, as regards Petitioner Garcia, the trial court directed
respondent
to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and for Petitioner
Garcia
to file his comment or opposition thereto.cralaw:red
"Instead,
respondent
filed a Motion to declare Petitioner Garcia in default and to allow him
to present his evidence ex parte. Meanwhile, Petitioner Garcia filed a
Manifestation submitting his defense to a judgment on the pleadings.
Subsequently,
respondent filed a Manifestation/Motion to submit the case for judgment
on the pleadings, withdrawing in the process his previous motion.
Thereunder,
he asserted that petitioner's and de Jesus' solidary liability under
the
promissory note cannot be any clearer, and that the check issued by de
Jesus did not discharge the loan since the check bounced."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 7, 1998, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 222) disposed of the
case as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment on the pleadings is hereby rendered in
favor
of respondent and against petitioner and De Jesus, who are hereby
ordered
to pay, jointly and severally, the respondent the following sums, to
wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
'1)
P400,000.00
representing the principal amount plus 5% interest thereon per month
from
January 23, 1997 until the same shall have been fully paid, less the
amount
of P120,000.00 representing interests already paid by x x x
de Jesus;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
'2) P100,000.00
as attorney's
fees plus appearance fee of P2,000.00 for each day of court appearance,
and;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
'3) Cost of this
suit.'"[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ruling of the Court
of Appeals
The CA ruled that the
trial court had erred when it rendered a judgment on the pleadings
against
De Jesus. According to the appellate court, his Answer raised genuinely
contentious issues. Moreover, he was still required to present his
evidence
ex parte. Thus, respondent was not ipso facto entitled to the RTC
judgment,
even though De Jesus had been declared in default. The case against the
latter was therefore remanded by the CA to the trial court for the ex
parte
reception of the former's evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to petitioner, the
CA treated his case as a summary judgment, because his Answer had
failed
to raise even a single genuine issue regarding any material fact.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellate court
ruled that no novation - express or implied - had taken place when
respondent
accepted the check from De Jesus. According to the CA, the check was
issued
precisely to pay for the loan that was covered by the promissory note
jointly
and severally undertaken by petitioner and De Jesus. Respondent's
acceptance
of the check did not serve to make De Jesus the sole debtor because,
first,
the obligation incurred by him and petitioner was joint and several;
and,
second, the check - which had been intended to extinguish the
obligation
- bounced upon its presentment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this Petition.[7]
Issues
Petitioner submits the
following issues for our consideration:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"I
Whether or not the
Honorable
Court of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that novation applies in
the instant case as x x x Eduardo de Jesus had
expressly assumed sole and exclusive liability for the loan obligation
he obtained from x x x Respondent Dionisio
Llamas,
as clearly evidenced by:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a)
Issuance
by x x x de Jesus of a check in payment of the full amount
of the loan of P400,000.00 in favor of Respondent Llamas, although the
check subsequently bounced;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) Acceptance of
the
check by the x x x respondent x
x
x which resulted in the substitution by x x
x
de Jesus or the superseding of the promissory note;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) x
x x
de Jesus having paid interests on the loan in the total amount of
P120,000.00;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d) The fact that
Respondent
Llamas agreed to the proposal of x x x de Jesus
that due to financial difficulties, he be given an extension of time to
pay his loan obligation and that his retirement benefits from the
Philippine
National Police will answer for said obligation.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"II
Whether or not the
Honorable
Court of Appeals seriously erred in not holding that the defense of
petitioner
that he was merely an accommodation party, despite the fact that the
promissory
note provided for a joint and solidary liability, should have been
given
weight and credence considering that subsequent events showed that the
principal obligor was in truth and in fact x x x de Jesus,
as evidenced by the foregoing circumstances showing his assumption of
sole
liability over the loan obligation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred ''III
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Whether or not
judgment
on the pleadings or summary judgment was properly availed of by
Respondent
Llamas, despite the fact that there are genuine issues of fact, which
the
Honorable Court of Appeals itself admitted in its Decision, which call
for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial."[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Simply put, the
issues
are the following: 1) whether there was novation of the obligation; 2)
whether the defense that petitioner was only an accommodation party had
any basis; and 3) whether the judgment against him — be it a judgment
on
the pleadings or a summary judgment — was proper.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The Court's
Ruling
The Petition has no
merit
First Issue:
Novation
Petitioner seeks to
extricate himself from his obligation as joint and solidary debtor by
insisting
that novation took place, either through the substitution of De Jesus
as
sole debtor or the replacement of the promissory note by the check.
Alternatively,
the former argues that the original obligation was extinguished when
the
latter, who was his co-obligor, "paid" the loan with the check.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The fallacy of the second
(alternative) argument is all too apparent. The check could not have
extinguished
the obligation, because it bounced upon presentment. By law,[9]
the delivery of a check produces the effect of payment only when it is
encashed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We now come to the main
issue of whether novation took place.cralaw:red
Novation is a mode of
extinguishing an obligation by changing its objects or principal
obligations,
by substituting a new debtor in place of the old one, or by subrogating
a third person to the rights of the creditor.[10]
Article 1293 of the Civil
Code defines novation as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Art. 1293.
Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of
the
original one, may be made even without the knowledge or against the
will
of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor. Payment by
the new debtor gives him rights mentioned in articles 1236 and 1237."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In general, there are
two
modes of substituting the person of the debtor: (1) expromision and (2)
delegacion. In expromision, the initiative for the change does not come
from — and may even be made without the knowledge of — the debtor,
since
it consists of a third person's assumption of the obligation. As such,
it logically requires the consent of the third person and the creditor.
In delegacion, the debtor offers, and the creditor accepts, a third
person
who consents to the substitution and assumes the obligation; thus, the
consent of these three persons are necessary.[11]
Both modes of substitution by the debtor require the consent of the
creditor.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Novation may also be
extinctive or modificatory. It is extinctive when an old obligation is
terminated by the creation of a new one that takes the place of the
former.
It is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the
extent
that it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement.[13]
Whether extinctive or modificatory, novation is made either by changing
the object or the principal conditions, referred to as objective or
real
novation; or by substituting the person of the debtor or subrogating a
third person to the rights of the creditor, an act known as subjective
or personal novation.[14]
For novation to take place, the following requisites must concur:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) There must be a
previous valid obligation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) The parties
concerned
must agree to a new contract.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) The old contract
must be extinguished.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(4) There must be a
valid new contract.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Novation may also be
express or implied. It is express when the new obligation declares in
unequivocal
terms that the old obligation is extinguished. It is implied when the
new
obligation is incompatible with the old one on every point.[16]
The test of incompatibility is whether the two obligations can stand
together,
each one with its own independent existence.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Applying the foregoing
to the instant case, we hold that no novation took place.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The parties did not
unequivocally declare that the old obligation had been extinguished by
the issuance and the acceptance of the check, or that the check would
take
the place of the note. There is no incompatibility between the
promissory
note and the check. As the CA correctly observed, the check had been
issued
precisely to answer for the obligation. On the one hand, the note
evidences
the loan obligation; and on the other, the check answers for it.
Verily,
the two can stand together.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither could the payment
of interests — which, in petitioner's view, also constitutes novation[18]
- change the terms and conditions of the obligation. Such payment was
already
provided for in the promissory note and, like the check, was totally in
accord with the terms thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Also unmeritorious is
petitioner's argument that the obligation was novated by the
substitution
of debtors. In order to change the person of the debtor, the old one
must
be expressly released from the obligation, and the third person or new
debtor must assume the former's place in the relation.[19]
Well-settled is the rule that novation is never presumed.[20]
Consequently, that which arises from a purported change in the person
of
the debtor must be clear and express.[21]
It is thus incumbent on petitioner to show clearly and unequivocally
that
novation has indeed taken place.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the present case,
petitioner has not shown that he was expressly released from the
obligation,
that a third person was substituted in his place, or that the joint and
solidary obligation was cancelled and substituted by the solitary
undertaking
of De Jesus. The CA aptly held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
" x
x
x Plaintiff's acceptance of the bum check did not result in
substitution
by de Jesus either, the nature of the obligation being solidary due to
the fact that the promissory note expressly declared that the liability
of appellants thereunder is joint and solidary. Reason: under the law,
a creditor may demand payment or performance from one of the solidary
debtors
or some or all of them simultaneously, and payment made by one of them
extinguishes the obligation. It therefore follows that in case the
creditor
fails to collect from one of the solidary debtors, he may still proceed
against the other or others x x x"[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, it must be
noted that for novation to be valid and legal, the law requires that
the
creditor expressly consent to the substitution of a new debtor.[23]
Since novation implies a waiver of the right the creditor had before
the
novation, such waiver must be express.[24]
It cannot be supposed, without clear proof, that the present respondent
has done away with his right to exact fulfillment from either of the
solidary
debtors.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
More important, De Jesus
was not a third person to the obligation. From the beginning, he was a
joint and solidary obligor of the P400,000 loan; thus, he can be
released
from it only upon its extinguishment. Respondent's acceptance of his
check
did not change the person of the debtor, because a joint and solidary
obligor
is required to pay the entirety of the obligation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It must be noted that
in a solidary obligation, the creditor is entitled to demand the
satisfaction
of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors.[26]
It is up to the former to determine against whom to enforce collection.[27]
Having made himself jointly and severally liable with De Jesus,
petitioner
is therefore liable[28]
for the entire obligation.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second Issue:
Accommodation Party
Petitioner avers that
he signed the promissory note merely as an accommodation party; and
that,
as such, he was released as obligor when respondent agreed to extend
the
term of the obligation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This reasoning is misplaced,
because the note herein is not a negotiable instrument. The note reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"PROMISSORY
NOTEchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"P400,000.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"RECEIVED FROM
ATTY.
DIONISIO V. LLAMAS, the sum of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS, Philippine
Currency payable on or before January 23, 1997 at No. 144 K-10 St.
Kamias,
Quezon City, with interest at the rate of 5% per month or fraction
thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It is understood
that
our liability under this loan is jointly and severally [sic].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Done at Quezon
City,
Metro Manila this 23rd day of December, 1996."[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By its terms, the note
was made payable to a specific person rather than to bearer or to order[31]
— a requisite for negotiability under Act 2031, the Negotiable
Instruments
Law (NIL). Hence, petitioner cannot avail himself of the NIL's
provisions
on the liabilities and defenses of an accommodation party. Besides, a
non-negotiable
note is merely a simple contract in writing and is evidence of such
intangible
rights as may have been created by the assent of the parties.[32]
The promissory note is thus covered by the general provisions of the
Civil
Code, not by the NIL.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even granting arguendo
that the NIL was applicable, still, petitioner would be liable for the
promissory note. Under Article 29 of Act 2031, an accommodation party
is
liable for the instrument to a holder for value even if, at the time of
its taking, the latter knew the former to be only an accommodation
party.
The relation between an accommodation party and the party accommodated
is, in effect, one of principal and surety — the accommodation party
being
the surety.[33]
It is a settled rule that a surety is bound equally and absolutely with
the principal and is deemed an original promisor and debtor from the
beginning.
The liability is immediate and direct.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third Issue:
Propriety of Summary Judgment or Judgment on the Pleadings
The next issue illustrates
the usual confusion between a judgment on the pleadings and a summary
judgment.
Under Section 3 of Rule 35 of the Rules
of Court, a summary judgment may be rendered after a summary
hearing
if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on
file show that (1) except as to the amount of damages, there is no
genuine
issue regarding any material fact; and (2) the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A summary judgment
is a procedural device designed for the prompt disposition of actions
in
which the pleadings raise only a legal, not a genuine, issue regarding
any material fact.[35]
Consequently, facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there
is yet no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or
affirmative defenses are set forth in the answer, but the issues are
fictitious
as shown by the pleadings, depositions or admissions.[36]
A summary judgment may be applied for by either a claimant or a
defending
party.[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, under
Section 1 of Rule 34 of the Rules
of Court, a judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer
fails
to render an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the
adverse party's pleading. The essential question is whether there are
issues
generated by the pleadings.[38]
A judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant, who is
the
party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim; or
to obtain a declaratory relief.[39]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Apropos thereto, it
must be stressed that the trial court's judgment against petitioner was
correctly treated by the appellate court as a summary judgment, rather
than as a judgment on the pleadings. His Answer[40]
apparently raised several issues - that he signed the promissory note
allegedly
as a mere accommodation party, and that the obligation was extinguished
by either payment or novation. However, these are not factual issues
requiring
trial. We quote with approval the CA's observations:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Although
Garcia's
Answer tendered some issues, by way of affirmative defenses, the
documents
submitted by respondent nevertheless clearly showed that the issues so
tendered were not valid issues. Firstly, Garcia's claim that he was
merely
an accommodation party is belied by the promissory note that he signed.
Nothing in the note indicates that he was only an accommodation party
as
he claimed to be. Quite the contrary, the promissory note bears the
statement:
'It is understood that our liability under this loan is jointly and
severally
[sic].' Secondly, his claim that his co-defendant de Jesus already paid
the loan by means of a check collapses in view of the dishonor thereof
as shown at the dorsal side of said check."[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the records, it
also
appears that petitioner himself moved to submit the case for judgment
on
the basis of the pleadings and documents. In a written Manifestation,[42]
he stated that "judgment on the pleadings may now be rendered without
further
evidence, considering the allegations and admissions of the parties."[43]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of the foregoing,
the CA correctly considered as a summary judgment that which the trial
court had issued against petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, this Petition
is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, pp. 11–39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., pp. 41–46. Tenth Division. Penned by Justice Renato C. Dacudao,
with
the concurrence of Justices Ruben T. Reyes (Division chairman) and
Mariano
C. del Castillo (member).
[3]
Rollo, pp. 48–49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
CA Decision, p. 6; rollo, p. 46.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., pp. 2–3 & 42–43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
RTC Decision, p. 4; rollo, p. 68. Penned by Judge Eudarlio B. Valencia.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Only Petitioner Garcia appealed the CA Decision. His Petition was
deemed
submitted for decision on January 30, 2003, upon the Court's receipt of
respondent's Memorandum signed by Atty. Felipe N. Egargo Jr.
Petitioner's
Memorandum, which was signed by Atty. Carlos G. Nery Jr., was received
by the Court on January 16, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Petitioner's Memorandum, pp. 10–11; rollo, pp. 97–98. Original in upper
case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Article 1249 of the Civil Code provides in part:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The
delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or
other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only
when
they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they
have
been impaired.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x x
x
x x
x
x x x" chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Idolor v. CA, 351 SCRA 399, 407, February 7, 2001; Agro Conglomerates,
Inc. v. CA, 348 SCRA 450, 458, December 12, 2000; De Cortes v.
Venturanza,
79 SCRA 709, 722–723, October 28, 1977; PNB v. Mallari and The First
Nat'l.
Surety & Assurance Co., Inc., 104 Phil. 437, 441, August 29, 1958.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV (1991 ed.), p. 390;
De
Cortes v. Venturanza, supra, p. 723.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Garcia v. Khu Yek Chiong, 65 Phil. 466, 468, March 31, 1938; De Cortes
v. Venturanza, supra, p. 723.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Babst v. CA, 350 SCRA 341, January 26, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Spouses Bautista v. Pilar Development Corporation, 371 Phil. 533,
August
17, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Agro Conglomerates, Inc. v. CA, supra, pp. 458–459; Security Bank and
Trust
Company, Inc. v. Cuenca, 341 SCRA 781, 796, October 3, 2000; Reyes v.
CA.,
332 Phil. 40, 50, November 4, 1996.
[16]
Spouses Bautista v. Pilar Development Corporation, supra. See also
Article
1292 of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Molino v. Security Diners International Corporation, 415 Phil. 587,
August
16, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 17; rollo, p. 104.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Reyes v. CA, supra; citing Ajax Marketing and Development Corporation
v.
CA., 248 SCRA 222, September 14, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Ibid.; Agro Conglomerates, Inc. v. CA, supra; Security Bank and Trust
Company,
Inc. v. Cuenca, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
CA Decision, p. 5; rollo, p. 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Article 1293 of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Babst v. CA; supra; citing Testate Estate of Mota v. Serra, 47 Phil.
464,
February 14, 1925.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Article 1216 of the Civil Code provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Art.
1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors
or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of
them
shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed
against
the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
PH Credit Corporation v. CA, 370 SCRA 155, November 22, 2001;
Industrial
Management International Development Corp. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 387 Phil. 659, May 11, 2000; Inciong Jr. v. CA, 327 Phil.
364,
June 26, 1996. See also Article 1216 of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Inciong v. CA, 327 Phil. 364, June 26, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Ibid.; PH Credit Corporation v. CA, supra; Industrial Management
International
Development Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
See Articles 1217 and 1218 of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Records, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides the requisites for
the negotiability of an instrument, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Section
1. Form of negotiable instruments. An instrument to be negotiable must
conform to the following requirements:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It
must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Must
contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in
money;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Must
be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Must
be payable to order or to bearer; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Where
the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise
indicated therein with reasonable certainty."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the
Philippines, Vol. 1 (1992 ed.), p. 100.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Spouses Gardose v. Tarroza, 352 Phil. 797, May 19, 1998, citing Caneda
Jr. v. CA, 181 SCRA 762, February 5, 1990; Prudencio v. CA, 227 Phil.
7,
July 14, 1986.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Palmares v. CA, 351 Phil. 664, March 31, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Puyat v. Zabarte, 352 SCRA 738, February 26, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Narra Integrated Corporation v. CA, 344 SCRA 781, November 15, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
See §§1 and 2 of Rule 35 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Diman v. Alumbres, 359 Phil. 796, November 27, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Dated February 2, 1998; records, pp. 21–22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
CA Decision, p. 5; rollo, p. 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
Dated May 12, 1998; records, pp. 44–45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Petitioner's Manifestation dated May 12, 1998, p. 1; id., p. 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|