Nego Digest Week 2
Nego Digest Week 2
FACTS:
The petitioner Pineda acquired the services of the respondent Atty. De La Rama. Atty.
De La Rama was tasked cause the delay of the filing of charges by NARIC (Nat. Rice and
Corn Administration) against the petitioner. It is discovered that the said agency will file a
criminal case against the petitioner of misappropriation of some cavans of palay. De La Rama
was found to be a good friend of the General Manager of the said agency.
Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly loaned an amount of money from De La Rama for
the purposes of buying a hacienda in Mindoro, where the petitioner executed a promissory
note in favor of the respondent. In view of this, the respondent sued the petitioner for collection
of sum of money and damages, presenting as evidence the said promissory notes.
The respondent, on the other hand, vehemently denied his liability under the said notes,
arguing that he issued the same due to the manifestation of De La Rama that he had
advanced the said amount to the NARIC general manager as lube money, for the purposes
of preventing the filing of the criminal case.
The RTC ruled in favor of Pineda, holding that Pineda executed the said promissory
note not for the purposes buying the said hacienda, as averred by the respondents, but as a
security for the payment of De La Rama to the NARIC general manager.
Upon appeal of the respondent, the CA reversed the RTC ruling, holding that Pineda,
being a person of more than average intelligence, astute in business and wise in many ways,
would not sign any document with his name therein unless he was fully aware of the terms and
conditions thereof. With the foregoing, the petitioner sought recourse from the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the said promissory notes are valid
HELD:
(1.) The promissory notes are invalid. Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to
have been issued for valuable consideration; and every person thereto whose signature
appears thereon to have become a party thereto for value. However, this presumption is only
prima facie (on its face) in favor validity, and can be proven otherwise by satisfactory evidence.
(2.) The CAs reliance to this presumption is misplaced, as contrary evidence shows that the
issuance such note by Pineda is not for the alleged purchase of a hacienda, as asserted by De
La Rama. It is for actually for the illegal purpose of indirectly bribing the NARIC general
manager in order that the latter desist from filing a criminal action against Pineda. It is hard to
believe that a man of high stature would repose trust to a fixer whom he met only for 3 months.
De La Rama did not even specify where Pineda intended to use the said cash.
(3.) Under the laws on obligations and contracts, a promissory note is void ab initio when the
consideration for its issuance is for an unlawful purpose; as in the case at bar, for the purposes
of bribery. Consequently, no cause of action for recovery of such amounts can arise therewith.
Page 1 of 13
Page 2 of 13
Page 3 of 13
Page 4 of 13
Page 5 of 13
Ebrada filed her answer, alleging that she is a holder in due course as well as the
formers indorsers of the checks. Upon stipulation of facts, it was established that the checks
had several indorsement, to wit; Martin Lorenzo -> Ramon Lorenzo (forged signature), Ramon
Lorenzo -> Delia Dominguez, Delia Dominguez -> Mauricia Ebrada. She also contended that
she had turned over the said amount to Delia Dominguez, the latter then turned over as well
the amount to Justinia Tinio. The RTC ruled in favor of the bank.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ebrada is principally liable despite the fact that she turned over the
amount to another, hence did not receive nor enjoyed the value of the said note.
HELD:
(1.) Ebrada is liable on the instrument on account that she is an accommodation party. Under
sec 29 of the NIL, an accommodation party is one who:
1. Had signed an instrument as an indorser, maker, drawer, acceptor,
2. without receiving the value thereof,
3. for the purposes of lending his name for the benefit of another,
4. the latter will be held principally liable for the instrument to a holder for value, regardless if
the holder knew him to be merely an accommodation party.
(2.) Under these premises, Ebrada drew the check for the benefit of Dominguez. She is
principally liable as an accommodation party.
Page 6 of 13
Page 7 of 13
Page 8 of 13
Page 9 of 13
Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 13
(refer to Velascos dissent regarding B.P. 22; civil liability of drawer of a bouncing check is
absolute)
Page 12 of 13
Page 13 of 13