Traders royal bank vs ca

- NO. The CBCI is not a negotiable instrument, since the instrument clearly stated that it was payable to
Filriters, and the certificate lacked the words of negotiability which serve as an expression of consent
that the instrument may be transferred by negotiation.

Before the instruments become negotiable instruments, the instrument must conform to the
requirements under the Negotiable Instrument Law. Otherwise instrument shall not bind the parties

new pacific timber vs senaris

- No valid reason for the private respondent to have refused acceptance of the payment of the obligation
in his favour. It is to be emphasized in this connection that the check deposited by the petitioner in the
amount of P50,000.00 is not an ordinary check but a Cashiers Check of the Equitable Banking
Corporation, a bank of good standing and reputation. As testified to by the Ex-Officio Sheriff with whom it
has been deposited, it is a certified crossed check. It is a well-known and accepted practice in the
business sector that a Cashiers Check is deemed as cash. Moreover, since the said check had been
certified by the drawee bank, by the certification, the funds represented by the check are transferred
from the credit of the maker to that of the payee or holder, and for all intents and purposes, the latter
becomes the depositor of the drawee bank, with rights and duties of one in such situation.

roman catholic church of malolos vs iac

1. No. Tender of payment involves a positive and unconditional act by the obligor of offering legal tender
currency as payment to the obligee for the formers obligation and demanding that the latter accept the
same. Thus, tender of payment cannot be presumed by a mere inference from surrounding
circumstances. At most, sufficiency of available funds is only affirmative of the capacity or ability of the
obligor to fulfill his part of the bargain. The respondent court was therefore in error.

2. No. In the case of Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals:

Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an
instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. A check, whether a managers check or ordinary
check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment
and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. The tender of payment by the private respondent
was not valid for failure to comply with the requisite payment in legal tender or currency stipulated within
the grace period

osmena vs citibanks

Since a managers check is normally purchased in favor of a third party, the identity of whom in most
cases is unknown to the issuing bank, its only responsibility when paying the check was to examine the
genuineness of the check. It had no way of ascertaining the genuineness of the signature of the payee
respondent Frank Tan who was a total stranger to it. If at all, the petitioner had a cause of action only
against the respondent Associated Bank which, as depository or collecting bank, was obliged to make
sure that the check in question was properly endorsed by the payee. It is not expected of the respondent
Citibank to ascertain the genuineness of the indorsement of the payee or even the lack of indorsement by
him, most especially when the check was presented for payment with the respondent Associated Banks
guaranteeing all prior indorsements or lack thereof.
bpi express card corp vs ca

The issuance of the postdated check was not effective payment on the part of Marasigan and thus, the
bank was justified in suspending temporarily his use of the credit card. A check is only a
substitute for money and not money, and the delivery of such instrument doesn't itself operate
as payment.

phil bank of commerce vs aruego

An inspection of the drafts accepted by the defendant would show nowhere that he has disclosed that he
was signing in representation of the Philippine Education Foundation Company. He merely signed his
name. For failure to disclose his principal, Aruego was personally liable for the drafts he accepted.

phil airlines vs ca

Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an
instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. A check, whether a managers check or ordinary
check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment
and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. Mere delivery of checks does not discharge the
obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished and remains suspended until the
payment by commercial document is actually realized (Art. 1249, Civil Code, par. 3).

metropolitan bank and trust company vs ca

he treasury warrants were not negotiable instruments. Clearly, it is indicated that it was non-
negotiable and of equal significance is the indication that they are payable from a particular
fund, Fund 501. This indication as the source of payment to be made on the treasury warrant
makes the promise to pay conditional and the warrants themselves non-negotiable.

Metrobank then cannot contend that by indorsing the warrants in general, GS assumed that they were
genuine and in all respects what they purport it to be, in accordance to Section 66 of the NIL. The
simple reason is that the law isnt applicable to the non-negotiable treasury warrants. The
indorsement was made for the purpose of merely depositing them with Metrobank for clearing.
It was in fact Metrobank which stamped on the back of the warrants: All prior indorsements and/or
lack of endorsements guaranteed

garcia vs llamas

YES. CA Affirmed. 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 - NOT in this case

By its terms, the note was made payable to a specific person rather than to bearer or to order- a
requisite for negotiability under Act 2031, the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). Hence, petitioner
cannot avail himself of the NILs 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
The promissory note is thus covered by the general provisions of the Civil Code, not by the NIL

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

kaufmman vs pnb

No. Provisions of the NIL can come into operation there must be a document in existence of the
character described in section 1 of the Law; and no rights properly speaking arise in respect to
said instrument until it is delivered.

The order transmitted by PNB to its NY branch, for the payment of a specified sum of money to
the plaintiff was not made payable to order or to bearer, as required in subsection (d) of that
Act; and inasmuch as it never left he possession of the bank, or its representative in NY, there
was no delivery in the sense intended in section 16 of the same Law.

In connection, it is unnecessary to point out that the official receipt delivered by the bank to the
purchaser of the telegraphic order cannot itself be viewed in the light of a negotiable instrument,
although it affords complete proof of the obligation actually assumed by the bank

ong vs people

people vs yabut

The "delivery" contemplated by law "must be to a person who takes it (the bad check) as holder, which means the payee or indorsee of a bill
or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. 3 Petitioner's brother, Vicente Lim, cannot be said to have taken the bad checks in
question in the concept of a holder for he is neither the payee nor indorsee thereof. Neither could he be deemed the agent of petitioner with
respect thereto, for he was purposely sent to private respondent to get certain stock certificates and not the checks in dispute. Thus, as
declared by Vicente Lim in his affidavit: 4

jai-alai corp vs bpi

Respondent bank acted within legal bounds when it debited the account of petitioner. When
the petitioner deposited the checks to its account, the relationship created was one of agency
still and not of creditor-debtor. The bank was to collect from the drawees of the checks with the
corresponding proceeds.

The Bank may have the proceeds already when it debited the account of petitioner.
Nonetheless, there is still no creditor-debtor relationship.

Following Section 23, a forged signature is wholly inoperative and no right to discharge it or
enforce its payment can be acquired through or under the forged signature except against a
party who cannot invoke its forgery or want of authority. It stands to reason that as a
collecting bank which indorsed the checks to the drawee-banks for clearing, should be
liable to the latter for reimbursement for the indorsements on the checks had been forged prior
to their delivery to the petitioner. The payments made by the drawee banks to respondent
were ineffectivethe creditor-debtor relationship hadnt been validly effected.

bpi vs casa montessori internationals

A forged signature is a real and absolute defense, and a person whose signature appears
on a negotiable instrument is forged is deemed to never have become a party thereto and to have
never consented to the contract that allegedly gave rise to it.

The counterfeiting of any writing, consisting in the signing of anothers name with intent
to defraud, is forgery.

First, there was really a finding of forgery. The forger admitted even in his affidavit of his
forgery.

Second, there was a finding by the police laboratory that indeed the signatures were
forged.

Furthermore, the negligence is attributable to BPI alone. Its negligence consisted in the
omission of the degree of diligence required of a bank.

*Loss borne by proximate cause of negligence

republic vs bpi

Where a loss, which must be borne by one of two parties alike innocent of forgery,
can be traced to the neglect or fault of either, it is reasonable that it would be
borne by him, even if innocent of any intentional fraud, through whose means it
has succeeded

traders royal banks vs radio phil

Petitioner ought to have known that where a check is drawn payable to the order of one person and is
presented for payment by another and purports upon its face to have been duly indorsed by the payee
of the check, it is the primary duty of the petitioner to know that the check was duly indorsed by
the original payee, and it pays the amount of the check to the third person, who has forged the
signature of the payee, the loss falls upon the petitioner who cashed the check. Its only remedy is
against the person to whom it paid the money.

It should be further noted that one of the checks was a crossed check. The crossing of the check
should have put petitioner on guard; it was duty-bound to ascertain the indorsers title to the
check or the nature of his possession.
pcib vs ca

The checks were drawn against the drawee bank but the title of the person negotiating the same was
allegedly defective because the instrument was obtained by fraud and unlawful means, and the
proceeds of the checks were not remitted to the payee. It was established that instead paying the
Commissioner, the checks were diverted and encashed for the eventual distribution among
members of the syndicate.

Pursuant to this, it is vital to show that the negotiation is made by the perpetrator in breach of
faith amounting to fraud. The person negotiating the checks must have gone beyond the authority
given by his principal. If the principal could prove that there was no negligence in the performance of
his duties, he may set up the personal defense to escape liability and recover from other parties
who, through their own negligence, allowed the commission of the crime.

It should be resolved if Ford is guilty of the imputed contributory negligence that would defeat its
claim for reimbursement, bearing in mind that its employees were among the members of the
syndicate. It appears although the employees of Ford initiated the transactions attributable to the
organized syndicate, their actions were not the proximate cause of encashing the checks payable
to CIR. The degree of Fords negligence couldnt be characterized as the proximate cause of the
injury to parties. The mere fact that the forgery was committed by a drawer-payors confidential
employee or agent, who by virtue of his position had unusual facilities for perpetrating the fraud and
imposing the forged paper upon the bank, doesnt entitle the bank to shift the loss to the drawer-payor,
in the absence of some circumstance raising estoppel against the drawer.

Note: not only PCIB but also Citibank is responsible for negligence. Citibank was negligent in the
performance of its duties as a drawee bank. It failed to establish its payments of Fords checks
were made in due course and legally in order.

metrobank vs ca

pnb vs ca 256 scra 491

An alteration is said to be material if it alters the effect of the instrument. It means an unauthorized
change in the instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party or an
unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to
the obligation of the party. In other words, a material alteration is one which changes the items
which are required to be stated under Section 1 of the NIL.

In this case, the alleged material alteration was the alteration of the serial number of the check in
issuewhich is not an essential element of a negotiable instrument under Section 1. PNB alleges
that the alteration was material since it is an accepted concept that a TCAA check by its very
nature is the medium of exchange of governments, instrumentalities and agencies. As a safety
measure, every government office or agency is assigned checks bearing different serial numbers.
But this contention has to fail. The checks serial number is not the sole indicia of its origin. The name
of the government agency issuing the check is clearly stated therein. Thus, the checks drawer is
sufficiently identified, rendering redundant the referral to its serial number.

Therefore, there being no material alteration in the check committed, PNB could not return the check to
PBCOM. It should pay the same.

pcib vs ca

ilusorio vs ca

The petitioner doesnt have a course of action against the bank. To be entitled to damages,
petitioner has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the bank for failure to detect the
discrepancy in the signatures on the checks. It is incumbent upon petitioner to establish the fact of
forgery. Curiously though, petitioner failed to supply additional signature specimens as requested by
the NBI. The bank was not also remiss in performance of its duties, it practices due diligence in
encashing checks. The bank didnt
have any hint of the modus operandi of Eugenio as she was a regular customer, designated by
the petitioner himself to transact on his behalf.

It was petitioner who was negligent in this case. He failed to examine his bank statements and this
was the proximate cause of his own damage. Because of this negligence, he is precluded from
setting up the defense of forgery with regard the checks.

mwss vs ca

There was no categorical finding that the 23 checks were signed by persons other than
those authorized to sign. On the contrary, the NBI reports shows that the fraud was an
inside job and that the delay in the reconciliation of the bank statements and the laxity
and loss of records
control in the printing of the personalized checks facilitated the fraud. It further doesnt provide
that the signatures were forgeries.

Forgery cannot be presumed. It should be proven by clear, convincing and positive evidence.
This wasnt done in the present case.

The petitioner cannot invoke Section 23 because it was guilty of negligence not only before the
questioned checks but even after the same had already been negotiated.

gempesaw vs ca

Forgery is a real defense by the party whose signature was forged. A party whose signature was forged
was never a party and never gave his consent to the instrument. Since his signature doesnt appear
in the instrument, the same cannot be enforced against him even by a holder in due course. The
drawee bank cannot charge the account of the drawer whose signature was forged because he never
gave the bank the order to pay.

In the case at bar the checks were filled up by petitioners employee Galang and were later given
to her for signature. Her signing the checks made the negotiable instruments complete. Prior to signing
of the checks, there was no valid contract yet. Petitioner completed the checks by signing them
and thereafter authorized Galang to deliver the same to their respective payees. The checks were
then indorsed, forged indorsements thereon.

As a rule, a drawee bank who has paid a check on which an indorsement has been forged cannot
debit the account of a drawer for the amount of said check. An exception to this rule is when
the drawer is guilty of negligence which causes the bank to honor such checks. Petitioner in this case
has relied solely on the honesty and loyalty of her bookkeeper and never bothered to verify the
accuracy of the amounts of the checks she signed the invoices attached thereto. And though
she received her bank statements, she didn't carefully examine the same to double-check her
payments. Petitioner didn't exercise reasonable diligence which eventually led to the fruition of her
bookkeepers fraudulent schemes.

republic planters bank vs ca

Canlass is solidarily liable on each of the promissory notes to which his signature appears. The
promissory notes in question are negotiable instruments and thus, governed by the Negotiable
Instruments Law.

Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names in the instrument are
makers are liable as such. By signing the note, the maker promises to pay to the order of the payee or
any holder the tenor of the obligation. Based on the above provisions of the law, there is no denying
that Canlass is one of the co-makers of the promissory note.

pnb vs ca 25 scra 693

Acceptance is not required for checks, for the same are payable on demand. Acceptance and
payment are distinguished with each other. The former pertains to a promise to perform an act while
the latter is the actual performance of the act.

PNB had also been negligent with the particularity that it had been guilty of a greater degree of
negligence because it had a previous and formal notice from GSIS that the check had been lost, with the
request that payment be stopped. Just as important is that it is its acts, which are the proximate cause
of the loss.

san carlos milling co vs bpi

A bank is bound to know the signatures of its customers and if it pays a forged check, it must be
considered as making the payment out of its own funds, and cannot ordinarily charge the amount so
paid to the account of the depositor whose name was forged.

There is no act of the plaintiff that led the bank astray. If it was in fact lulled into the false sense of
security, it was by the effrontery of Dolores, the messenger to whom it entrusted this large sum of
money.

The proximate cause of the loss must therefore be due to the negligence of the bank in honoring and
cashing the two forged checks.

consolidated plywood inc vs ifc leasing

It is patent that the seller is liable for the breach in warranty against the petitioner. This liability as a
general rule extends to the corporation to whom it assigned its rights and interests unless the
assignee is a holder in due course of the promissory note in question, assuming the note is
negotiable, in which case, the latters rights are based on a negotiable instrument and assuming
further that the petitioners defense may not prevail against it.

The promissory note in question is not a negotiable instrument. The promissory note in question
lacks the so-called words of negotiability. And as such, it follows that the respondent can never be a
holder in due course but remains merely an assignee of the note in question. Thus, the
petitioner may raise against the respondents all defenses available to it against the seller.

metropol financing vs sambok motors

No. A qualified indorserment constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title to the
instrument. It may be made by adding to the indorsers signature the words without recourse or
any words of similar import. Such indorsement relieves the indorser of the general obligation to
pay if the instrument is dishonored but not of the liability arising from warranties on the
instrument as provided by section 65 of NIL. However, Sambok indorsed the note with
recourse and even waived the notice of demand, dishonor, protest and presentment.
Recourse means resort to a person who is secondarily liable after the default of the person
who is primarily liable. Sambok by indorsing the note with recourse does not make itself a
qualified indorser but a general indorser who is secondarily liable, because by such indorsement,
it agreed that if Villaruel fails to pay the not the holder can go after it. The effect of such
indorsement is that the note was indorsed witout qualification. A person who indorses without
qualification engages that on due presentment, the note shall be accepted or paid, or both as the
case maybe, and that if it be dishonored, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder. The words
added by Sambok do not limit his liability, but rather confirm his obligation as general indorser.

dev bank of Rizal vs sima wei

A negotiable instrument, of which a check is, is not only a written evidence of a contract right but is also
a species of property. Just as a deed to a piece of land must be delivered in order to convey title to the
grantee, so must a negotiable instrument be delivered to the payee in order to evidence its
existence as a binding contract. Section 16 provides that every contract on a negotiable instrument
is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto.
Thus, the payee of the negotiable instrument acquires no interest with respect thereto until its
delivery to him. Delivery of an instrument from the drawer to the payee, there can be no liability on the
instrument. Moreover, such delivery must be intended to give effect to the instrument.

dela victoria vs hon burgos

Garnishment is considered as the species of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the
judgment debtor owing to him from a stranger in litigation. Emphasis is laid on the phrase belonging to
the judgment debtor since it is the focal point of resolving the issues raised.

As Assistant City Fiscal, the source of Mabantos salary is public funds. Under Section 16 of the
NIL, every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the
instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As ordinarily understood, delivery means the
transfer of the possession of the instrument by the maker or drawer with intent to transfer title to
the payee and recognize him as the holder thereof.

The petitioner is the custodian of the checks. Inasmuch as said checks were in the custody of
the petitioner and not yet delivered to Mabanto, they didn't belong to him and still had the
character of public funds. The salary check of a government officer or employee doesn't belong
to him
before it has been physically delivered to him. Until that time the check belongs to the
government. Accordingly, before there is actual delivery of the check, the payee has no power over it,
he cannot assign it without the consent of the government.

*If public funds would be allowed to be garnished, then basic services of the government may be
hampered.

caltex vs ca

The CTDs in question are negotiable instruments as they meet the requirements of the law for
negotiability as provided for in Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. The documents provide
that the amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor. And according to the document, the
depositor is the "bearer." The documents do not say that the depositor is Angel de la Cruz and that the
amounts deposited are repayable specifically to him. Rather, the amounts are to be repayable to the
bearer of the documents or, for that matter, whosoever may be the bearer at the time of presentment.
However, petitioner cannot recover on the CTDs. Although the CTDs are bearer instruments, a valid
negotiation thereof for the true purpose and agreement between it and dela Cruz, as ultimately
ascertained, requires both delivery and indorsement. In this case, there was no indorsement as the
CTDs were delivered not as payment but only as a security for dela Cruz' fuel purchases.

de ocampo vs gatchalian
The SC held that plaintiff is a not a holder in due course. There were obvious instances to show
that the check was negligently acquired like plaintiff having no liability with defendant and that
the check was crossed. Plaintiff failed to exercise prudence and caution. Plaintiff should have
asked questions to further inquire upon suspicion.

The presumption of good faith did not apply to plaintiff because the defect was apparent on the
instruments face it was not payable to defendant or bearer.yang vs ca

mexina vs iac

Petitioner cannot raise as arguments that a cashiers check cannot be countermanded from the
hands of a holder in due course and that a cashiers check is a check drawn by the bank
against itself. Petitioner failed to substantiate that he was a holder in due course. Upon
questioning, he admitted that he got the check from Lim who stole the check. He refused to
disclose how and why it has passed to him. It simply means that he has notice of the defect of his title
over the check from the start. The holder of a cashiers check who is not a holder in due course
cannot enforce payment against the issuing bank which dishonors the same. If a payee of a
cashiers check obtained it from the issuing bank by fraud, or if there is some other reason why the
payee is not entitled to collect the check, the bank would of course have the right to refuse
payment of the check when presented by payee, since the bank was aware of the facts surrounding the
loss of the check in question.

astro electronics vs philguarantee

Yes. In signing his name aside from being the President of Astro, Roxas became a co-maker of
the promissory notes and cannot escape any liability arising from it. Under the Negotiable
Instruments Law, persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes are makers.
Thus, even without the phrase personal capacity, Roxas will still be primarily liable as a joint
and several debtor under the notes considering that his intention to be liable as such is manifested
by the fact that he affixed his signature on each of the promissory notes twice which necessarily
would imply that he is undertaking the obligation in two different capacities, official and
personal.

Moreover, an instrument which begins with I, We, or Either of us promise to pay, when
signed by two or more persons, makes them solidary liable (Republic Planters Bank vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 93073, December 21, 1992). Having signed under such terms, Roxas assumed
the solidary liability of a debtor and Philtrust Bank may choose to enforce the notes against him
alone or jointly with Astro.

ang tiong vs ting

Even on the assumption that the appellant was an accommodation indorser, as he professes to be,
he is nevertheless by the clear mandate of section 29, liable on the instrument to a holder for value,
notwithstanding that such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be an
accommodation party. And assuming that he was an accommodation party, he may obtain
security from the maker to protect himself against the danger of insolvency of the latter but this
doesn't affect his liability to the appellee, as the said remedy is a matter of recourse between him and
the maker.

caneda jr vs ca

As between Gueson and Caneda, it is obvious that whether private agreement between
them is binding on them alone and not on FNCB whose only concern in the whole transaction is
the repayment of the loan it has extended.

As regards FNCB, Caneda is the real debtor of the company and Gueson is only an
accommodation party of Caneda. The trial court held that there was novation as there was
substitution of debtors when Caneda executed the undertaking. But the CA is correct, by
saying that there was no novation. Novation is never presumed. It must be explicitly
stated. Caneda merely confirmed that he was the real debtor of FNCB in the undertaking
signed, while Gueson merely accommodated Caneda in signing the promissory note and
executing the chattel mortgage. Thus, it has been ruled that one who signs as maker, drawer,
acceptor or indorser, without receiving value therefore, and for the purpose of lending his name
to some other person is liable to the instrument to a holder for value,
notwithstanding the fact that such holder at the time of the taking the instrument knew
him to be only an accommodation party. Nonetheless, after paying the holder, he is
entitled to obtain reimbursement from the party accommodated.

Likewise, it is no defense to state that Caneda and Gueson didn't receive any value for the
promissory note executed, both claiming to be accommodation parties. A third person
advances the face value of the note to the accommodated party at the time of the
creation of the note, the consideration for the note as regards the maker is the money advanced
to the accommodated party, and it cannot be said that the note is lacking in consideration as to
the accommodating party just becaue he himself received some of the money. It is enough
that the value given for the note at the time of its creation.

rigor vs people

lim vs saban

prudencio vs ca

There is no question that as accommodation makers, petitioners would be primarily and unconditionally
liable on the promissory note to a holder for value, regardless of whether they stand as sureties or
solidary co-debtors since such distinction would be entirely immaterial and inconsequential as far as a
holder for value is concerned. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim to have been released
from their obligation simply because at the time of payment of such obligation was temporarily
deferred by the
PNB without their knowledge and consent. There has to be another basis for their claim of having
been freed from their obligation. It has to be determined if PNB was a holder for value.
A holder for value is one who meets the requirement of being a holder in due course except the notice
for want of consideration. In the case at bar, PNB may not be considered as a holder for value. Not
only was PNB an immediate party or privy to the promissory note, knowing fully well that
petitioners only signed as accommodation parties, but more importantly it was the Deed of
Assignment which moved the petitioners to sign the promissory note. Petitioners also relied on the
belief that there will be no
alterations to the terms of the agreement. The deed provided that there will no further conditions
which could possibly alter the agreement without the consent of the petitioner such as the grant
of greater priority to obligations other than the payment of the loan. This notwithstanding, the bank
approved the release of payments to the Company instead of the same to the bank. This was
in violation of the deed of assignment and prejudiced the rights of petitioners. The bank was
not in good faitha requisite for a holder to be one in due course.

maulini vs serrano

NO. Appellant is not an accommodation indorser in this case. The accommodation to which reference is
made in the Section 29 of Negotiable Instruments Law is not one to the person who takes the note
that is, the payee or indorsee, but one to the maker or indorser of the note. It may be true that in the
case at bar it was an accommodation to the plaintiff, in a popular sense, to have the defendant indorse
the note; but it was not the accommodation described in the law, but, rather, a mere favor to him and
one which in no way bound Serrano.

sadaya vs sevilla

Sadaya could have sought reimbursement from Varona, which is right and just as the latter
was the only one who received value for the note executed. There is an implied contract of
indemnity between Sadaya and Varona upon the formers payment of the obligation to the bank.

Surely enough, the obligations of Varona and Sevilla to Sadaya cannot be joint and several. For
indeed, had payment been made by Varona, Varona couldn't had reason to seek reimbursement
from either Sadaya or Sevilla. After all, the proceeds of the loan went to Varona alone.

On principle, a solidary accommodation makerwho made paymenthas the right to

contribution, from his co-accomodation maker, in the absence of agreement to the contrary
between them, subject to conditions imposed by law. This right springs from an implied
promise to share equally the
burdens thay may ensue from their having consented to stamp their signatures on the
promissory note.

The following are the rules:

1. A joint and several accommodation maker of a negotiable promissory note may

demand from the principal debtor reimbursement for the amount that he paid to the payee
2. A joint and several accommodation maker who pays on the said promissory note may
directly demand reimbursement from his co-accommodation maker without first directing his
action against the
principal debtor provided that
a. He made the payment by virtue of a judicial demand
b. A principal debtor is insolvent.

It was never shown that there was a judicial demand on Sadaya to pay the obligation and also, it
was never proven that Varona was insolvent. Thus, Sadaya cannot proceed against Sevilla for
reimbursement.

travel-on vs ca

There was no accommodation transaction in the case at bar. In accommodation transactions

recognized by the Negotiable Instruments Law, an accommodating party lends his credit to the
accommodated party, by issuing or indorsing a check which is held by a payee or indorsee as a
holder in due course, who gave full value therefor to the accommodated party. The latter, in
other words, receives or realizes full value which the accommodated party then must repay to
the accommodating party. But the accommodating party is bound on the check to the holder in
due course who is necessarily a third party and is not the accommodated party. In the case at
bar, Travel-On was payee of all six (6) checks, it presented these checks for payment at the
drawee bank but the checks bounced. Travel-On obviously was not an accommodated party; it
realized no value on the checks which bounced. Miranda must be held liable on the checks
involved as petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the statutory presumption that it was a holder in
due course and that the checks were supported by valuable consideration.

agro-conglomeratee inc vs ca

First, there was no contract of sale that materialized. The original agreement was that
Wonderland would pay cash and petitioner would deliver possession of the farmlands.
But this was changed through an addendum, that petitioner would instead secure a loan and
the settlement
of the same would be shouldered by Wonderland.

Petitioners became liable as accommodation parties. They have the right after paying the
instrument to seek reimbursement from the party accommodated, since the relation between
them has in effect became one of principal and surety.

Furthermore, as it turned out, the contract of surety between Woodland and petitioner was
extinguished by the rescission of the contract of sale of the farmland. With the rescission, there
was confusion in the persons of the principal debtor and surety. The addendum thereon
likewise lost its
efficacy.

francisco vs ca
Petitioner is liable. The Negotiable Instruments Law provides that where any person is under
obligation to indorse in a representative capacity, he may indorse in such terms as to negative
personal liability. An agent, when so signing, should indicate that he is merely signing in behalf
of the principal and must disclose the name of his principal; otherwise he shall be held
personally liable. Even assuming that Francisco was authorized by HCCC to sign Ong's name,
still, Francisco did not indorse the instrument in accordance with law. Instead of signing Ong's
name, Francisco should have signed her own name and expressly indicated that she was
signing as an agent of HCCC. Thus, the Certification cannot be used by Francisco to validate
her act of forgery.

Tuason vs heirs of ramos

First, there is no contract of agency.

If it was truly the intention of the parties to have a contract of agency, then when the spouses
sued Santos on a separate civil action, they should have instituted the same on behalf and for the
respondents. They didn't do so. The filing in their own names negate their claim that they acted as
mere agents in selling the rice.

Second, the spouses are liable on the check.

As indorser, Tuazon warranted that upon due presentment, according to their tenor, and that in
case they were dishonored, she would pay the corresponding amount. After the instrument is
dishonored by non-payment, indorsers cease to be merely secondarily liable. They became
principal debtors whose liability becomes identical to that of the original obligor. The holder of
a negotiable instrument need not even proceed against the maker before suing the
indorser. Santos is not an indispensable party to the suit against the spouses.