PNB V Picornell
PNB V Picornell
PICORNELL Issue:
Whether Picornell and HTV are liable to reimburse the
46 PHIL 716 bank on the bill it advanced to pay for the Tobacco.
FACTS: Held:
Picornell followed the instructions of Hyndman, Tavera Yes, HTV cannot escape liability in view of section 28 of the
and Venutra by buying bales of tobacco. He was able to Negotiable Instruments Law. The drawee by acceptance
obtain in National Bank a sum of money together with his becomes liable to the payee or his indorsee, and also to
commission. He drafted a bill of exchange against the firm the drawer himself. But the drawer and acceptor are the
and in favor of the bank. It was received by National Bank immediate parties to the consideration, and if the
and was accepted thereafter by the firm. However, on acceptance be without consideration, the drawer cannot
alleged conditions of the tobacco, the bill of exchange was recover of the acceptor. The payee holds a different
not paid. relation; he is a stranger to the transaction between the
drawer and the acceptor, and is, therefore, in a legal sense
a remote party. In a suit by him against the acceptor, the
question as to the consideration between the drawer and
HELD: the acceptor cannot be inquired into. The payee or holder
gives value to the drawer, and if he is ignorant of the
This action for recovery is for the value of the bill of equities between the drawer and the acceptor, he is in the
exchange. The firm accepted the bill unconditionally but position on a bona fide indorsee. Hence, it is no defense to
did not pay it at maturity, wherefore its responsibility to a suit against the acceptor of a draft which has been
pay the same is clear. The question whether or not the discounted, and upon which money has been advance by
tobacco was worth the value of the bill doesn’t the plaintiff, that the draft was accepted or the
concern the bank. Such partial want of consideration accommodation of the drawer.
if it was, doesn’t exist with respect to the bank which
paid Picornell the full value of the said bill of exchange. As to Bartolome Picornell, he warranted, as drawer of the
The bank was a holder in due course, and was such for bill, that it would be accepted upon proper presentment
value full and complete. and paid in due course, and as it was not paid, he became
The firm cannot escape liability. liable to the payment of its value to the holder thereof,
which is the plaintiff bank. The fact that Picornell was a
commission agent of HTV, in the purchase of the tobacco,
does not necessarily make him an agent of the company in
PNB vs Picornell 46 Phil 716, 26 Sept 1922, G.R. No. L-
its obligations arising from the drawing of the bill by him.
18751 His acts in negotiating the bill constitute a different
Facts: contract from that made by his having purchased the
Picornell, following instruction of Hyndman, Tavera & tobacco on behalf of HTV. Furthermore, he cannot exempt
Ventura (HTV), bought in bales of tobacco; that Picornell himself from responsibility by the fact of his having been a
obtained from the branch of the National Bank in Cebu a mere agent of this company, because nothing to this effect
sum of of money to the value of the tobacco, together was indicated or added to his signature on signing the bill.
with his commission, drawn the following bill of exchange.
The invoice and bill of lading were delivered to the
National Bank with the understanding that the bank
should not delivered them to HTV except upon payment of
the bill; The invoice and bill of lading was delivered and
accepted by HTV who proceeded to the examination of the
tobacco. HTV wrote and cable to Picornell, notifying him
that of the tobacco received, there was a certain portion
which was no use and was damaged. After a number of
communication between Picornell and HTV, HTV refuse to
pay the bill and instruct the bank to dispose and sell the
tobacco. The Bank sold the tobacco for the amount less of
the bill it advanced. The bank demand payment for the
said balance which Picornell and HTV refused to pay,
hence this case.