ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 146663.March 14, 2001]

PERPETUAL SAVINGS BANK vs. BRONDIAL, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 14 2001.

G.R. No. 146663(Perpetual Savings Bank vs. Dolores Brondial, et al.) - Petitioner Bank filed a complaint for sum of money against respondent Dolores Brondial and her husband. Petitioner Bank alleged that, for value received, respondent Dolores executed a promissory note (PN) in the amount of P826,315.00 in favor of petitioner Bank payable in lump sum on 11 February 1984 plus interests. The PN had allegedly long matured but respondents failed to pay the amount thereon.

Among others, respondents raised the defense of lack of consideration for the PN. According to respondent Dolores, she was required to sign the loan instruments and execute the PN by petitioner Bank as condition to her appointment as Senior Manager of Perpetual Capital Investments & Finance Corp. an affiliate of petitioner Bank.

Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of respondents upon the following factual findings: petitioner Bank was originally named Perpetual Savings Loan and Association. On 8 February 1983, it changed its name to Perpetual Savings Bank under the management of Danilo Natividad, President; Crisanto Norofla, Executive Vice-President; Zoilo Gabriel, Vice-President for Operations. Petitioner Bank designated Metropolitan Batik, Baclaran Branch as its depository bank with Account No. 070-15004-9. Natividad, Norofla and Gabriel were the authorized check signatories. These three officers, together with Roberto and Adora Baes, also had a joint account with the same bank under Account No. 070-00490-5. The authorized check signatories were the same bank officers.

On 11 February 1983, respondent Dolores purportedly applied for a loan and simultaneously executed the subject PN. Earlier, on 10 February 1983, City Estate Developers, Inc. executed a real estate mortgage of several parcels of land to secure, among others, the loan of respondent Dolores. The check issued to respondent Dolores as proceeds of the loan was endorsed and deposited on 14 February 1983 to Metro Bank Account No. 070-00490-5, the personal account of Natividad., Norofia, Gabriel and the Baeses.

The other documentary evidence further showed that the personal account of Natividad, et al. (Account No. 070-00490-5) was used to transfer the purported loan of respondent Dolores to petitioner Bank's account (Account No. 070-15004-9). Thus, the CA ruled that petitioner Bank as holder of the check, is not a holder in due course and accordingly, not entitled to enforce or collect payment from the maker (respondent Dolores) because of absence or lack of consideration. Absence or lack of consideration is a valid defense against any person not a holder in due course (Section 28, Negotiable Interests Law).

It was further held that contrary to petitioner Bank's insistence, respondent Dolores is not liable as an "accommodation maker." Section 29 of the NIL defines the term as -

x x x one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of taking the instrument, knew him to be only an accommodation party.

As held by the CA, it was petitioner Bank who was accommodated by respondent Dolores when she executed the PN, thus, petitioner Bank cannot collect from respondent Dolores.

In this petition, petitioner Bank avers that the CA erred in, among others, not according the presumption of regularity in the execution by respondent Dolores of the subject PN; the CA erred in ruling that petitioner Bank is not a holder in due course and that respondent Dolores is not liable as "accommodation maker;" and the CA erred in awarding the counterclaims of respondents.

Petitioner Bank has failed to show any cogent reasons to deviate from the general rule that factual findings of the lower court are accorded great weight. In this case, both the RTC and CA found that there was no consideration for the issuance by respondent Dolores of the PN. Upon appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties, the RTC and CA found that respondent Dolores was not indebted to petitioner Bank because the amounts (P826,315.00) she purportedly received were returned to and received by petitioner Bank on the very day the checks were released. Respondent Dolores did not receive a single centavo from the loan.

Contrary to petitioner Bank's position, the presumption of regularity in the issuance of the PN had been sufficiently overthrown upon showing that the checks released to respondent Dolores as proceeds of the loan were immediately deposited to the personal account of Natividad et al, the officers of petitioner Bank. Thereafter, the funds in this account were credited to the account of petitioner Bank.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE