Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > November 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 24224 November 3, 1926 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON MAZA, ET AL.

048 Phil 207:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 24224. November 3, 1926. ]

THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMON MAZA and FRANCISCO MECENAS, Defendants-Appellants.

Lutero, Lutero & Maza for Appellants.

Roman J. Lacson for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. BILLS AND NOTES; NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW; LIABILITY OF ACCOMMODATION PARTY. — The accommodation party can claim no benefit as such, but he is liable according to the face of hi undertaking, the same as if he were himself financially interested in the transaction.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSIDERATION. — To fasten liability upon an accommodation maker, it is not necessary that any consideration should move to him.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHTS OF ACCOMMODATION PARTY AFTER PAYMENT After making payment to the holder, the accommodation party may sue the accommodated party for reimbursement, since the relation between them is in effect that of principal and surety, the accommodation party being the surety.


D E C I S I O N


MALCOLM, J. :


The Philippine National Bank is suing Ramon Maza and Francisco Mecenas on five promissory notes of ten thousand pesos (P10,000) each.

Maza and Mecenas executed two of the promissory notes on January 20, 1921, due three months after date. The three other notes due four months after date were executed by the same parties on January 21, 1921. One of the above-mentioned notes, typical of the rest, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"P10,000.00 ILOILO, I. F., Jan. 20, 1921

"A los tres meses de la fecha, pagaremos mancomu nada y solidariamente a la orden del Philippine National Bank, Iloilo, Iloilo, I. F., Ia cantidad de diez mil (P10,000) pesos en el Philippine National Bank.

"Iloilo, I. F.

"Valor Recibido.

"No. 340 Pagadero el 4/20/21

(Fdos.) "RAMON MAZA

"FRANCISCO MECENAS"

The notes were not taken up by Maza and Mecenas at maturity. The obligations with accumulated interest totaled P65,207.73 on September 22, 1924.

To recover the amounts stated on the face of the notes with back interest, action was begun by the Philippine National Bank in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against Ramon Maza and Francisco Mecenas. 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, Echaus, might negotiate them with the Philippine National Bank in case of need; that the defendants have not negotiated the promissory notes with the bank, nor have they received the value thereof, or delivered them to the bank in payment of any preexisting debt; and that it was Enrique Echaus who negotiated the notes with the bank and who is accordingly the real party in interest and the party liable for the payment of the notes. Defendants also moved that Echaus be ordered included as one of the defendants. The trial judge denied the motion. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally for a total of P65,207.73, with interest at 9 per cent on twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) from September 23,1924, or at the rate of five pesos (P5) a day, and with interest at 9 per cent on thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) from September 23, 1924, or at the rate of P7.50 a day, and with costs.

Four errors are assigned by the defendants on appeal. The first error relates to the order of the trial judge refusing to require Enrique Echaus to become a party to the action As the defendants failed to duly except to the order, they are not now entitled to ask this court to review the ruling. Moreover, it is not evident that Echaus was an indispensable party. The other three errors go to the merits and rest on the same foundation as the special defense.

From the pleadings and the stipulation of facts, it is deduced that the defendants admit the genuineness and due execution of the instruments sued on (Code of Civil Procedure, secs. 103, 285; Ramirez v. Orientalist Co. and Fernandez [1918], 38 Phil., 634). 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. Predicated on these premises, from whatever point of view we look at the case, we arrive at the same conclusion — that the defendants are liable.

On the first assumption that Maza and Mecenas were the principals and Echaus the agent, as argued by counsel for the appellee, the principals must fulfill their obligations (Civil Code, art. 1727). On another assumption, which is a fact, that the defendants are exactly what they appear to be, the makers of the negotiable instruments, then they must keep their engagement and must pay as promised. Their liability on the instruments is primary and unconditional. (Negotiable Instruments Law, Act No. 2031, sec. 60.)

The most plausible and reasonable stand for the defendants is that they are accommodation parties. But as accommodation parties, the defendants having signed the instruments without receiving value therefor and for the purpose of lending their names to some other person, are still liable on the instruments. The law now is that the accommodation party can claim no benefit as such, but he is liable according to the face of his undertaking, the same as if he were himself financially interested in the transaction. (Negotiable Instruments Law, Act No. 2031, sec 29; First Nat. Bank of Elgin v. Bach [1920], 98 Ore., 332.)

The defense is made to the action that the defendants never received the value of the promissory notes. It is, of course, fundamental that an instrument given without consideration does not create any obligation at law or in equity in favor of the payee. However, to fasten liability upon an accommodation maker, 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. (5 Uniform Laws, Annotated, pp. 140 et seq.; Clark v. Sellner [1921], 42 Phil., 384; First National Bank of Hancock v. Johnson [1903], 133 Mich., 700; 103 Am. St. Rep., 468; Marling v. Jones [1909], 138 Wis., 82; 131 Am. St. Rep., 996; Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter [1916], 164 Wis., 131.)

While perhaps unnecessary to this decision, it may properly be remarked that when the accommodation parties make payment to the holder of the notes, they have the right to sue the accommodated party for reimbursement, since the relation between them is in effect that of principal and sureties, the accommodation parties being the sureties.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 25966 November 1, 1926 - MANUEL TORRES, ET AL. v. MARGARITA LOPEZ

    049 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 25706 November 2, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANUNCIACION ROSAL

    049 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 24084 November 3, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

    048 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 24224 November 3, 1926 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON MAZA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 25241 November 3, 1926 - HARRIE S. EVERETT, ET AL. v. ASIA BANKING CORP., ET AL.

    049 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 26008 November 4, 1926 - GREGORIO MONTINOLA v. MARIA PIEDAD VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 25795 November 6, 1926 - C. T. WILLIAMS v. TEOFULO SUÑER

    049 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 24914 November 6, 1926 - JEREMIAS YNUMERABLE v. ENRIQUE V. FILAMOR

    048 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 25888 November 6, 1926 - GERARDO GUSTILO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ

    049 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 25292 November 10, 1926 - HILADO & HILADO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROV. OF OCC. NEGROS

    049 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 25777 November 10, 1926 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CEBU v. PHIL. RAILWAY CO., ET AL.

    049 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. 26017 November 11, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ATANACIO JAGON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 25445 November 12, 1926 - SINGH v. JUAN SULSE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 563

  • G.R. Nos. 25642 & 25643 November 12, 1926 - BPI v. GABRIELA ANDREA R. DE COSTER, ET AL.

    049 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 26323 November 12, 1926 - AGAPITA VILLADOS, ET AL. v. EGMIDIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 25912 November 15, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. BENIGNO PALAMOS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 24794 November 17, 1926 - AURELIO CECILIO v. GABRIEL BELMONTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 26418 November 18, 1926 - AQUILINO CALVO, ET AL, v. Hon. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 26555 November 16, 1926 - BALDOMERO ROXAS, ET AL. v. Hon. MARIANO DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 25920 November 17, 1926 - M.W. STAIGHT v. A.D. HASKELL, ET AL.

    049 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 26284 November 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN TUBOG, ET AL.

    049 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 26130 November 18, 1926 - PEDRO RIVERA, ET AL. v. Hon. C. CARBALLO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 23999 November 21, 1926 - GREGORIO ZAGALA v. EUSTACIO S. ILUSTRE

    048 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 25254 November 22, 1926 - Mons. ALFREDO VERZOSA v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    049 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 25726 November 22, 1926 - PANTALEON E. DEL ROSARIO v. RESTITUTO VILLEGAS

    049 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 24804 November 24, 1926 - LEANDRA MANLAPAS, ET AL. v. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 25729 November 24, 1926 - BELGIAN CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES, INC. v. MAGALLANES PRESS INC., ET AL.

    049 Phil 647