Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1922 > March 1922 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17230 March 17, 1922 - JOSE VELASCO v. TAN LIUAN & CO.

043 Phil 195:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-17230. March 17, 1922. ]

JOSE VELASCO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TAN LIUAN & CO., TAN LIUAN, UY TENGPIAO, and AW YONG CHIOW SOO, Defendants. AW YONG CHIOW SOO, Appellant.

Jesus E. Blanco for Appellant.

De Joya & Espiritu for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


Act No. 2031, of the Philippine Legislature, known as "The Negotiable Instruments Law," says:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. SECTION 30. WHAT CONSTITUTES NEGOTIATION. — An instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer, it is negotiated by delivery; if payable to order, it is negotiated by the indorsement of the holder completed, by delivery.

2. SECTION 33. KINDS OF INDORSEMENT. — An indorsement may be either special or in blank; and it may also be either restrictive or qualified, or conditional.

3. SECTION 38. QUALIFIED INDORSEMENT. — A qualified indorsement constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title to the instrument. It may be made by adding to the indorser’s signature the words "without recourse" or any words of similar import. Such an indorsement does not impair the negotiable character of the instrument.

4. SECTION 45. TIME OF INDORSEMENT; PRESUMPTION. — Except where an indorsement bears date after the maturity of the instrument, every negotiation is deemed prima facie to have been effected before the instrument was overdue.

5. SECTION 63. WHEN PERSON DEEMED INDORSER. — A person placing his signature upon an instrument otherwise than as maker, drawer, or acceptor is deemed to be an indorser, unless he clearly indicates by appropriate words his intention to be bound in some other capacity.

6. SECTION 66. LIABILITY OF GENERAL INDORSER. — Every indorser who indorses without qualification, warrants to all subsequent holders in due course —

(a) The matters and things mentioned in subdivision (a), (b), and (c) of the next preceding section; and

(b) That the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting.

And, in addition, he engages that on due presentment, it shall be accepted or paid, or both, as the case may be, according to its tenor, and that if it be dishonored, and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it.

7. SECTION 80. WHEN PRESENTMENT FOR PAYMENT IS NOT REQUIRED. — Presentment for payment is not required in order to charge an indorser where the instrument was made or accepted for his accommodation and he has no reason to expect that the instrument will be paid if presented.

SECTION 114. (d) Where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will honor the instrument.

8. PAROL EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE. — Where a person makes an unqualified indorsement of a promissory note, parol testimony is not admissible to explain or defeat liability.

9. HOW LIABILITY IS AVOIDED. — Where an indorser of a promissory note wants to avoid liability, he should make his indorsement "without recourse," or in such a manner as to disclaim or limit personal liability.


D E C I S I O N


STATEMENT

The defendant Tan Liuan & Co. executed to the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo four certain promissory notes: The first, for P12,000, dated February 18th, the second, for P16,000, dated February 23d, the third, for P38,000, dated March 17th, and the fourth, for P21,000, dated March 27th, all in the year 1919, and each payable six months after its respective date.

March 17, 1919, the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo drew a bill of exchange or sight draft, for 33,500 Yen on Jing Kee & Co., 2 Kaisandori 5-Chone, Kobe, in favor of the Philippine National Bank, which at first it refused to cash. The plaintiff was then induced to, and did, endorse it, and the bank cashed the draft, no part of which plaintiff received, and it is claimed that all of the money was paid to Tan Liuan & Co. In the ordinary course of business, the draft was dishonored when presented, and later the plaintiff was requested to, and did, personally execute to the Philippine National Bank his promissory note, for the amount of the draft, interest and expenses.

August 18, 1919, Tan Liuan made the following written statement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In consideration for the indorsement by Jose Velasco at my request of a draft drawn by Aw Yong Chiow Soo on Mess. Jing Kee & Co., 2 Kaisandori 5-Chone, Kobe, Japan, for the payment of which he became liable upon his indorsement for the sum of 33,500 Yen, I promise to pay to Jose Velasco, or order, within ten days after he shall have been obligated to pay the amount of said draft, or any part thereof, the full amount with all costs, expenses and attorney’s fees which he shall pay on account of his indorsement of said draft, with interest on the amount paid by him at 10 per cent annum thereon from the time of payment."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the same day, the plaintiff made the following written statement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Aw Yong Chiow Soo having this day transferred to me his claim of credit against the firm of Tan Liuan & Co. as collateral security in consideration of my having indorsed his draft made by him on Messrs. Jing Kee & Co. for the sum of 33,500 Yen and presented to the Philippine National Bank by which it was cashed, now if the drawer of said draft or the said Aw Yong Chiow Soo shall pay the said draft so that I am relieved from all responsibility in connection therewith and the expenses incurred on account thereof, then I will reassign the said claim against Tan Liuan & Co. to him, and if I am obliged to pay said draft, any amount which I may receive on account of said claim assigned to me over and above the amount paid by me, including all expenses and attorney’s fees, shall be delivered to the said Aw Yong Chiow Soo."cralaw virtua1aw library

August 22, 1919, the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo made the following written statement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For value received and to me in hand paid, I hereby assign, transfer and deliver to Jose Velasco the whole amount of my credit against Tan Liuan & Co., amounting to eighty-seven thousand pesos (P87,000), evidence by four (4) promissory notes, which are described as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Promissory note dated Manila, February 18, 1919, for the sum of P12.000; for six (6) months;

"2. Promissory note dated Manila, February 23, 1919, for the sum of P16,000; for six (6) months;

"3. Promissory note dated Manila, March 17, 1919, for the sum of P38,000, for six (6) months;

"4. Promissory note dated Manila, March 27, 1919, for the sum of P21,000; for six months;

the above-mentioned promissory notes being attached hereto and made a part hereof, and fully authorize the said Jose Velasco to collect and receive the said amount from Tan Liuan & Co., or from the legal representative of, or liquidator of said Tan Liuan & Co."cralaw virtua1aw library

Concurrent therewith, the defendant unqualifiedly indorsed the four promissory notes to the plaintiff, who, on February 19, 1920, commenced this action against the defendants.

The complaint alleges the execution of the notes by the defendant Tan Liuan & Co. to the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo. That the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo indorsed the notes to the plaintiff; that at their maturity they were duly presented to Tan Liuan & Co.; and that payment was refused, of which refusal the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo was duly notified.

For answer, Aw Yong Chiow Soo makes a general denial, and, as a further and separate defense, alleges the drawing of the sight draft, and that it was an accommodation only, and that, conforming to the agreement, it was duly indorsed by the plaintiff, and Aw Yong Chiow Soo delivered the money to the defendant Tan Liuan. The defendant then alleges the making of the written statement by Tan Liuan of August 18, 1919, above quoted. On that date, Aw Yong Co., evidenced by the promissory notes above described, and that Tan Liuan & Co. Was insolvent. That by reason thereof, one of the promissory notes was executed to guarantee Aw Yong Chiow Soo Against any liability in case that Tan Liuan or the plaintiff would not pay the sight draft, and because the bank had requested the plaintiff to pay the draft, this defendant and the plaintiff agreed that this defendant should transfer to him all of its interest in the four promissory notes, under an agreement that, in case Jing Kee & Co. should pay the draft, the plaintiff would re-transfer the notes to this defendant, but in the event that the plaintiff was required to pay the draft, that he would endeavor to collect the notes in full, and from the proceeds would first reimburse himself and then pay any remainder to the defendant. It is also alleged that the plaintiff has not paid the draft or made any effort to collect it from Tan Liuan. That this defendant is not liable to the plaintiff on any contract, and does not owe him anything, but that, under the agreement, the plaintiff should return to this defendant any amount which he should collect over the amount of his personal claim. That, by reason of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, Tan Liuan, this defendant has been released and discharged of all liability, and that the action is premature.

Upon such issues, the case was tried, and the lower court rendered judgment against the defendants Tan Liuan & Co. and Tan Liuan and Uy Tengpiao, for the full amount of the notes, from which the plaintiff should only receive a sufficient amount to fully compensate him as an indorser of the draft; to wit, P46,135.70, and that, if collected the remainder, if any, should be paid to Aw Yong Chiow Soo against whom judgment was rendered for the amount of P46,135.70 should the defendant Tan Liuan & Co. fail to pay the judgment. From this, the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo only appealed, claiming that the lower court erred in rendering judgment against it upon the four promissory notes, or that it was liable for the payment of either of them, or that it should pay the plaintiff P46,135.70, or that he should have any judgment against this defendant.

JOHNS, J. :


It will be noted that two of the promissory are dated in February; that the third is dated March 17th, and the last March 27th, all in 1919. That each promissory note is payable six months after date, and is executed by Tan Liuan & Co. in favor of Aw Yong Chiow Soo.

The sight draft is dated March 17, 1919, payable thirty days after date, and is drawn by Aw Yong Chiow Soo upon Jing Kee & Co. in favor of the Philippine National Bank.

The written statement of Tan Liuan is dated August 18, 1919, and that three of the promissory notes were then due and payable.

Although it is claimed that Tan Liuan & Co. received the proceeds from the draft, its name does not appear in or upon the draft, and it is very apparent that the written statement of Tan Liuan & Co., of August 18th, was signed, for the purpose of showing the true relations of that firm to the transaction, and that within ten days after the plaintiff had assumed and paid the amount of the draft, with costs and expenses, Tan Liuan & Co. would pay the plaintiff the full amount which plaintiff had obligated himself to pay. In other words, Tan Liuan Co., by that writing, assumes all liability for the amount of the draft and promises to pay the plaintiff and release him from all liability. In legal effect, plaintiff’s written statement of August 18th, is an acknowledgment of the receipt from Aw Yong Chiow Soo of the four promissory notes as collateral security for his indorsement of the draft, and that, in the event the plaintiff is released from his liability, he will then reassign the notes is the defendant, Aw Yong Chiow Soo, and that, if he is required to pay the draft, any amount which he may receive on account of the promissory notes over and above the amount which he is required to pay, he will then pay any indorsement of Aw Yong Chiow Soo of the notes to the plaintiff was unqualified, and the law fixes the liability of an unqualified indorser, and oral testimony is not admissible to vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument.

SEC. 30. of Act No. 2031, of the Philippine Legislature, known as "The Negotiable Instruments Law," says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 30. What constitutes negotiation. — An instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer, it is negotiated by delivery; if payable to order, it is negotiated by the indorsement of the holder completed by delivery.

"SEC. 31. Indorsement; how made. — The indorsement must be written on the instrument itself or upon a paper additional words, is a signature of the indorser, without additional words, is a sufficient indorsement.

"SEC. 33 Kinds of indorsement. — An indorsement may be either special or in blank; and it may also be either restrictive or qualified, or conditional.

"SEC. 38. Qualified indorsement. — A qualified indorsement constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title to the instrument. It may be made by adding to the indorser’s signature the words ’without recourse’ or any words of similar import. Such an indorsement does not impair the negotiable character of the instrument.

"SEC. 45 Time of indorsement; presumption. — Except where an indorsement bears date after the maturity of the instrument, every negotiation is deemed prima facie to have been effected before the instrument was overdue.

"SEC. 63. When person deemed indorser. — A person placing his signature upon an instrument otherwise than as maker, drawer, or acceptor is deemed to be an indorser, unless he clearly indicates by appreciate words his intention to be bound in some other capacity.

"SEC. 66 Liability of general indorser. — Every indorser who indorses without qualification, warrants to all subsequent holders in due course —

"(a) The matters and things mentioned in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of the next preceding section; and

"(b) That the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting.

"And, in addition, he engages that on due presentment, it shall be accepted or paid, or both, as the case may be, according to its tenor, and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it.

"SEC. 114. When notice need not be given to drawer. — Notice of dishonor is not required to be given to the drawer in either of the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(d) Where the drawer has no right or require that the drawee or acceptor will honor the instrument."cralaw virtua1aw library

Aw Young Chiow Soo, being an unqualified indorser, the law fixes its liability.

If it was not its purpose or intent to assume and agree to pay the notes, it should have indorsed them "without recourse," or in such manner as to disclaim any personal liability. When a person makes an unqualified indorsement of a promissory note, the Negotiable Instruments Law specifies and defines his liability, and parol testimony is not admissible to explain or defeat such liability. Here, the bill of exchange was drawn by the defendant, Aw Yong Chiow Soo, and it was the bill of exchange which was indorsed by the plaintiff, and the testimony is conclusive that plaintiff’s indorsement was required by the bank as one of the conditions upon which it would cash the draft. Three of the notes had matured at the time they were indorsed and the written instruments signed. Although the draft was drawn by Aw Yong Chiow Soo, it was dishonored, and the plaintiff was required by the bank to execute his note for its amount. At the time of the execution of the notes, Aw Yong Chiow Soo was a creditor of Tan Liuan & Co. for the amount of the notes.

The action here is not based upon the draft. It is founded upon the promissory notes. the plaintiff did not receive any part of the proceeds of the draft, but has been required by the bank to make his promissory note for the amount of the draft. As collateral and to indemnity and protect plaintiff from any liability, Aw Yong Chiow Soo indorsed the promissory notes, which it held against Tan Liuan & Co. to the plaintiff, and did not in any manner qualify its indorsement, and the Negotiable Instruments Act says that —

"Every indorser who indorses without qualification, warrants to all subsequent holders in due course, etc., engages that on due presentment, it shall be accepted or paid, or both, as the case may be, according to its tenor, and that if it be dishonored, and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 80 of the Act says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Presentment for payment is not required in order to charge an indorser where the instrument was made or accepted for his accommodation and he has no reason to expect that the instrument will be paid if presented."cralaw virtua1aw library

And subdivision (d), of section 114, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Where the drawer has no right to except or require that the drawee or acceptor will honor the instrument."cralaw virtua1aw library

The draft was drawn on March 18, 1919, payable thirty days after sight, and it was dishonored. Three of the notes were past at the time written agreements were made, and the testimony is conclusive that Tan Liuan & co. was insolvent, and that Aw Yong Chiow Soo knew it, and that none of the notes would be paid if presented, and the evidence shows that, before they were indorsed the first two had been duly presented and dishonored. In other words, at the time the unqualified indorsement was made, two of the notes had been protested, and Aw Yong Chiow Soo knew that Tan Liuan & Co. was insolvent, and had no reason to expect that the notes would be paid if presented. There is no claim or pretense that its claim was prejudiced or that it lost any legal right, because the last two notes were not protected, the first of which was past due when it was indorsed.

The purpose and intent of the August written statements was to explain the transactions between the parties, to whom the proceed from the draft were paid, and that the notes were indorsed by Aw Yong Chiow Soo to plaintiff, as collateral, to protect and hold him harmless in his indorsement of the draft, and to specify that Aw Yong Chiow Soo should have any proceeds from the notes after the draft had been fully paid therefrom and the plaintiff released from his liability as an indorser. The statements do not make any reference to the legal liability of Aw Yong Chiow Soo as an indorser of the notes, do not and were never contended to fully discharge and release that firm from its liability as an indorser.

With all due respect to the able and ingenious brief for the appellant, there is no merit in the defense, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs in favor of the plaintiff. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and Rumualdez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1922 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17226 March 1, 1922 - L. S. MOON & CO. v. Honorable FRANCIS BURTON HARRISON

    043 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-17775 March 1, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO VEGA ET AL.

    043 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-18081 March 3, 1922 - IN RE: OF MORA ADONG v. CHEONG SENG GEE

    043 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-17493 March 4, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO PERFECTO, ET AL.

    043 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-17748 March 4, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GRACIANO L. CABRERA ET AL.

    043 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-17855 March 4, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GRACIANO L. CABRERA ET AL.

    043 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-17283 March 7, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SIXTO HERNANDEZ

    043 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 17729 March 7, 1922 - L. P. FIEGE, ET AL. v. SMITH

    043 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-17584 March 8, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GREGORIO SANTIAGO

    043 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-17603 March 8, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ROSALIO PANALIGAN, ET AL.

    043 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-18699 March 8, 1922 - TAN CHICO v. Honorable PEDRO CONCEPCION

    043 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-15950 March 9, 1922 - CARLOS PALANCA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    043 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-16492 March 9, 1922 - E. MACIAS & Co. v. Warner

    043 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-16878 March 9, 1922 - SERAPIO BANAAD v. ALEJANDRA CASTANEDA

    043 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-17436 March 9, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SERGIO MANZANILLA ET AL.

    043 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-18432 March 9, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. ISLANDS v. NICOLAS ENCARNACION

    043 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 18600 March 9, 1922 - B.E. JOHANNES v. Honorable GEORGE R. HARVEY

    043 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 16570 March 9, 1922 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD. v. VICENTE SOTELO MATTI

    044 Phil 874

  • G.R. No. 16869 March 13, 1922 - HEIRS OF ANTONIO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    044 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-17633 March 14, 1922 - CLARA W. GILMER v. L. HILLIARD

    043 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-17865 March 15, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CIPRIANA BUCSIT, ET AL.

    043 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-18056 March 16, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL R SEVILLA

    043 Phil 186

  • IN RE Attorney EUSEBIO TIONKO : March 17, 1922 - 043 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-17230 March 17, 1922 - JOSE VELASCO v. TAN LIUAN & CO.

    043 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-18054 March 18, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO SUNGA Y REYES (alias) ARSENIO LOPEZ

    043 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 18240 March 18, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ENGRACIA CAPACIA

    043 Phil 207

  • IN RE: ANTONIO HORRILLENO : March 20, 1922 - 043 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-17866 March 20, 1922 - ANDREE C. CHEREAU v. ASUNCION FUENTEBELLA ET AL.

    043 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-18402 March 22, 1922 - CALIXTO BERBARI v. Honorable Carlos A. Honorable CARLOS A. IMPERIAL

    043 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-16924 March 23, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. Gregorio Perfecto

    043 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-17933 March 23, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ATANASIO NANQUIL

    043 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 17024 March 24, 1922 - DOMINGO BEARNEZA v. BALBINO DEQUILLA

    043 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-18203 March 27, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TELESFORO DORADO, ET AL.

    043 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-17925 March 28, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EVARISTO ABAYA

    043 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-17254 March 29, 1922 - CRISPULO VILLARUEL v. TAN KING

    043 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-18740 March 29, 1922 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    043 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-16530 March 31, 1922 - MAMERTO LAUDICO, ET AL. v. MANUEL ARIAS RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

    043 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-18624 March 31, 1922 - GREGORIO MARQUEZ, ET AL. v. The Honorable BARTOLOME REVILLA

    043 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. L-18664 March 31, 1922 - MARIA GONZALEZ v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    043 Phil 277