7/29/2019 Liabilitty Nego Cases

1/4

Crisologo- Jose vs. CA

The president of Movers Enterprises, to accommodate its clients Spouses Ong, issued a check

in favor of petitioner Crisologo-Jose. This was in consideration of a quitclaim by petitioner over a

parcel of land, which the GSIS agreed to sell to spouses Ong, with the understanding that upon

approval of the compromise agreement, the check will be encashed accordingly. As the

compromise agreement wasn't approved during the expected period of time, the aforesaid check was

replaced with another one for the same value. Upon deposit though of the checks by petitioner, it

was dishonored. This prompted the petitioner to file a case against Atty. Bernares and Santos for

violation of BP22. Meanwhile, during the preliminary investigation, Santos tried to tender a

cashiers check for the value of the dishonored check but petitioner refused to accept such. This was

consigned by Santos with the clerk of court and he instituted charges against petitioner. The trial court

held that consignation wasn't applicable to the case at bar but was reversed by the CA.

HELD:

Petitioner averred that it is not Santos who is the accommodation party to the instrument but the

corporation itself. But assuming arguendo that the corporation is the accommodation party, it cannot

be held liable to the check issued in favor of petitioner. The rule on accommodation party

doesn't include or apply to corporations which are accommodation parties. This is because the issue or

indorsement of another is ultra vires. Hence, one who has taken the instrument with knowledge of the

accommodation nature thereof cannot recover against a corporation where it is only an

accommodation party. If the form of the instrument, or the nature of the transaction, is such as to charge

the indorsee with the knowledge that the issue or indorsement of the instrument by the corporation

is for the accommodation of another, he cannot recover against the corporation thereon.

By way of exception, an officer or agent of a corporation shall have the power to execute or

indorse a negotiable paper in the name of the corporation for the accommodation of a third

party only is specifically authorized to do so. Corollarily, corporate officers have no power to

execute for mere accommodation a negotiable instrument of the corporation for their

individual debts and transactions arising from or in relation to matters in which the corporation

has no legitimate concern. Since such accommodation paper cannot be enforced against the

corporation, the signatories thereof shall be personally liable therefore, as well as the consequences

arising from their acts in connection therewith.

7/29/2019 Liabilitty Nego Cases

2/4

Sadaya vs. Sevilla

G.R. No. L-17845 April 27, 1967

Lessons Applicable: Consideration and Accommodation Party

(Negotiable Instruments)

FACTS:

March 28, 1949: Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed, jointly

and severally, in favor of the BPI, or its order, a promissory note for P15,000.00 with

interest at 8% per annum, payable on demand.

The P15,000.00 proceeds was received by Oscar Varona alone.

Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya signed the promissory note as co-makers only as

a favor to Oscar Varona.

June 15, 1950: outstanding balance is P4,850.00. No payment thereafter made.

Oct 16 1952: bank collected from Sadaya total of P5,416.12(w/ int)

Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite repeated demands. V

Victor Sevilla died Francisco Sevilla was named administrator.

Sadaya filed a creditor's claim for the above sum of P5,746.12, plus attorneys fees

in the sum of P1,500.00

The administrator resisted the claim upon the averment that the deceased Victor

Sevilla "did not receive any amount as consideration for the promissory note," but

signed it only "as surety for Oscar Varona

June 5, 1957: Trial court order the administrator to pay

CA reversed.

ISSUE: W/N Sadaya can claim against the estate of Sevilla as co-accomodation party

when Verona as principal debtor is not yet insolvent

HELD: NO. Affirmed

Varona is bound by the obligation to reimburse Sadaya

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l-17845_1967.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l-17845_1967.html

7/29/2019 Liabilitty Nego Cases

3/4

solidary accommodation maker who made payment has the right to

contribution, from his co-accommodation maker, in the absence of agreement to

the contrary between them, and subject to conditions imposed by law

requisites before one accommodation maker can seek reimbursement from a co-

accommodation maker.

ART. 2073. When there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the

same debt, the one among them who has paid may demand of each of the others

the share which is proportionally owing from him.

If any of the guarantors should be insolvent, his share shall be borne by the others,

including the payer, in the same proportion.

(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, or -no judicial demand just

voluntarily

(b) a principal debtor is insolvent. - Varona is not insolvent

Travel-On vs. CA

Travel-On, Inc. vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-56169 June 26, 1992

-accommodation party

FACTS:

Petitioner Travel-On Inc. is a travel agency from which Arturo Miranda procured tickets

on behalf of airline passengers and derived commissions therefrom. Miranda was sued

by petitioner to collect on the six postdated checks he issued which were all dishonored

by the drawee banks. Miranda, however, claimed that he had already fully paid andeven overpaid his obligations and that refunds were in fact due to him. He argued that

he had issued the postdated checks not for the purpose of encashment to pay his

indebtedness but for purposes of accommodation, as he had in the past accorded

similar favors to petitioner. Petitioner however urges that the postdated checks areper

se evidence of liability on the part of private respondent and further argues that even

7/29/2019 Liabilitty Nego Cases

4/4

assuming that the checks were for accommodation, private respondent is still liable

thereunder considering that petitioner is a holder for value.

ISSUE:

Whether Miranda is liable on the postdated checks he issued even assuming that said

checks were issued for accommodation only.

RULING:

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. Mirandamust be held liable on thechecks 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.

**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. In the case at bar, Travel-On was the 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.