G.R. No. 146511 September 5, 2007
Lessons Applicable: Consideration and Accommodation (Negotiable Instruments)
FACTS:
- August 28, 1990: Associated Bank (formerly Associated Banking Corporation and now known as United Overseas Bank Philippines) filed a collection suit against Antonio Ang Eng Liong (principal debtor) and petitioner Tomas Ang (co-maker) for the 2 promissory notes
- October 3 and 9, 1978: obtained a loan of P50,000 and P30,000 evidenced by promissory note payable, jointly and severally, on January 31, 1979 and December 8, 1978
- Despite repeated demands for payment, the latest on September 13, 1988 and September 9, 1986, they failed to settle their obligations totalling to P539,638.96 as of July 31, 1990
- Antonio Ang Eng Liong only admitted to have secured a loan amounting to P80,000
- Tomas Ang: bank is not the real party in interest as it is not the holder of the promissory notes, much less a holder for value or a holder in due course; the bank knew that he did not receive any valuable consideration for affixing his signatures on the notes but merely lent his name as an accommodation party
- bank granted his co-defendant successive extensions of time within which to pay, without his knowledge and consent
- the bank imposed new and additional stipulations on interest, penalties, services charges and attorney's fees more onerous than the terms of the notes, without his knowledge and consent
- he should be reimbursed by his co-defendant any and all sums that he may be adjudged liable to pay, plus P30,000, P20,000 and P50,000 for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, respectively.
- October 19, 1990: RTC held Antonio Ang Eng Liong was ordered to pay the principal amount of P80,000 plus 14% interest per annum and 2% service charge per annum
- Lower Court: Granted against the bank, dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action.
- CA: ordered Ang to pay the bank - bank is a holder
- CA observed that the bank, as the payee, did not indorse the notes to the Asset Privatization Trust despite the execution of the Deeds of Transfer and Trust Agreement and that the notes continued to remain with the bank until the institution of the collection suit.
- With the bank as the "holder" of the promissory notes, the Court of Appeals held that Tomas Ang is accountable therefor in his capacity as an accommodation party.
- Tomas Ang cannot validly set up the defense that he did not receive any consideration therefor as the fact that the loan was granted to the principal debtor already constitutes a sufficient consideration.
ISSUE: W/N Ang is liable as accomodation party even without consideration and his co-accomodation party was granted accomodation w/o his knowledge
HELD: CA AFFIRMED
- At the time the complaint was filed in the trial court, it was the Asset Privatization Trust which had the authority to enforce its claims against both debtors
- accommodation party as a person "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." As gleaned from the text, an accommodation party is one who meets all the three requisites, viz: (1) he must be a party to the instrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser; (2) he must not receive value therefor; and (3) he must sign for the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person
- petitioner signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor. This is patent even from the first sentence of the promissory note which states as follows:
- "Ninety one (91) days after date, for value received, I/we, JOINTLY and SEVERALLY promise to pay to the PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS at its office in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY (P50,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, together with interest x x x at the rate of SIXTEEN (16) per cent per annum until fully paid."
- immaterial so far as the bank is concerned whether one of the signers, particularly petitioner, has or has not received anything in payment of the use of his name.
- since the liability of an accommodation party remains not only primary but also unconditional to a holder for value, even if the accommodated party receives an extension of the period for payment without the consent of the accommodation party, the latter is still liable for the whole obligation and such extension does not release him because as far as a holder for value is concerned, he is a solidary co-debtor.
