Ang vs Associated Bank E. Accomodation Party | Surety | Promissory Note

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 4
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report



Views: 11 | Pages: 4

Extension: DOCX | Download: 0

Related documents
  Ang vs Associated Bank, etal[G.R. No. 146511 September 5, !! #$acts%  On August 1990, respondent Associated Bank (formerly AssociatedBanking Corporation and now known as United Overseas Bank!ilippines #led a collection suit against Antonio Ang $ng %iong andpetitioner &omas Ang for t!e ' promissory notes t!at t!ey eecutedas principal de)tor and co*maker, respectively+ n t!e Complaint,respondent Bank alleged t!at on Octo)er - and 9 19./, t!edefendants o)tained a loan of  evidenced )y a promissory note and 0,000, -0,000, also evidenced )y a promissory note+ As agreed,t!e loan would )e paya)le, ointly and severally, on 2anuary 19.9and 3ecem)er 19./, respectively+ Also, su)se4uent amendments tot!e promissory notes as well as t!e disclosure statements stipulatedt!at t!e loan would earn interest+ 3espite repeated demands forpayment on Antonio Ang $ng %iong and &omas Ang, respondentBank claimed t!at t!e defendants failed and refused to settle t!eiro)ligation, resulting in a total inde)tedness of  -9,5-/+95+ n !is Answer, Antonio Ang $ng %iong only admitted to !ave secureda loan amounting to  /0,000+ 6e pleaded t!oug! t!at t!e )ank 7)eordered to su)mit a more reasona)le computation8 considering t!att!ere !ad )een 7no correct and reasona)le statement of account8sent to !im )y t!e )ank, w!ic! was allegedly collecting ecessiveinterest, penalty c!arges, and attorneys fees despite knowledget!at !is )usiness was destroyed )y #re, !ence, !e !ad no source of   income for several years+ :or !is part, petitioner &omas Ang #led anAnswer wit! Counterclaim and Cross*claim+ 6e interposed t!ea;rmative defenses t!at< t!e )ank is not t!e real party in interestas it is not t!e !older of t!e promissory notes, muc! less a !older forvalue or a !older in due course= t!e )ank knew t!at !e did notreceive any valua)le consideration for a;ing !is signatures on t!enotes )ut merely lent !is name as an accommodation party= !eaccepted t!e promissory notes in )lank, wit! only t!e printedprovisions and t!e signature of Antonio Ang $ng %iong appearingt!erein+ &ss'e%  >!et!er or not etitioner is lia)le to t!e o)ligation despite)eing a mere co*maker and accommodation party+ (eld%   ?es+ @ota)ly, ection '9 of t!e @% de#nes an accommodation partyas a person 7w!o !as signed t!e instrument as maker, drawer,acceptor, or indorser, wit!out receiving value t!erefor, and for t!epurpose of lending !is name to some ot!er person+8 As gleanedfrom t!e tet, an accommodation party is one w!o meets all t!et!ree re4uisites= (1 !e must )e a party to t!e instrument, signing asmaker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser= (' !e must not receive valuet!erefor= and (- !e must sign for t!e purpose of lending !is nameor credit to some ot!er person+ An accommodation party lends !isname to ena)le t!e accommodated party to o)tain credit or to raisemoney= !e receives no part of t!e consideration for t!e instrument)ut assumes lia)ility to t!e ot!er parties t!ereto+ &!eaccommodation party is lia)le on t!e instrument to a !older forvalue even t!oug! t!e !older, at t!e time of taking t!e instrument,  knew !im or !er to )e merely an accommodation party, as if t!econtract was not for accommodation+As petitioner acknowledged it to )e, t!e relation )etween anaccommodation party and t!e accommodated party is one of principal and surety  t!e accommodation party )eing t!e surety+from t!e )eginning= As suc!, !e is deemed an srcinal promisor andde)tor !e is considered in law as t!e same party as t!e de)tor inrelation to w!atever is adudged touc!ing t!e o)ligation of t!e lattersince t!eir lia)ilities are interwoven as to )e insepara)le+ Alt!oug! acontract of suretys!ip is in essence accessory or collateral to a validprincipal o)ligation, t!e suretys lia)ility to t!e creditor isimmediate, primary and a)solute= !e is directly and e4ually )oundwit! t!e principal+ As an e4uivalent of a regular party to t!eundertaking, a surety )ecomes lia)le to t!e de)t and duty of t!eprincipal o)ligor even wit!out possessing a direct or personalinterest in t!e o)ligations nor does !e receive any )ene#t t!erefrom+n t!e instant case, petitioner agreed to )e 7ointly and severally8lia)le under t!e two promissory notes t!at !e co*signed wit!Antonio Ang $ng %iong as t!e principal de)tor+ &!is )eing so, it iscompletely immaterial if t!e )ank would opt to proceed only againstpetitioner or Antonio Ang $ng %iong or )ot! of t!em since t!e lawconfers upon t!e creditor t!e prerogative to c!oose w!et!er toenforce t!e entire o)ligation against any one, some or all of t!ede)tors+ @onet!eless, petitioner, as an accommodation party, mayseek reim)ursement from Antonio Ang $ng %iong, )eing t!e partyaccommodated+Conse4uently, in issuing t!e two promissory notes, petitioner asaccommodating party warranted to t!e !older in due course t!at !e  would pay t!e same according to its tenor+ value t!erefore t is nodefense to state on !is part t!at !e did not receive any )ecause t!ep!rase 7wit!out receiving value t!erefor8 used in ec+ '9 of t!e @%means 7wit!out receiving value )y virtue of t!e instrument8 and notas it is apparently supposed to mean, 7wit!out receiving paymentfor lending !is name+8 tated dierently, w!en a t!ird personadvances t!e face value of t!e note to t!e accommodated party att!e time of its creation, t!e consideration for t!e note as regards itsmaker is t!e money advanced to t!e accommodated party+ t isenoug! t!at value was given for t!e note at t!e time of its creation+As in t!e instant case, a sum of money was received )y virtue of t!enotes, !ence, it is immaterial so far as t!e )ank is concernedw!et!er one of t!e signers, particularly petitioner, !as or !as notreceived anyt!ing in payment of t!e use of !is name+:urt!ermore, since t!e lia)ility of an accommodation party remainsnot only primary )ut also unconditional to a !older for value, even if t!e accommodated party receives an etension of t!e period forpayment wit!out t!e consent of t!e accommodation party, t!e latteris still lia)le for t!e w!ole o)ligation and suc! etension does notrelease !im )ecause as far as a !older for value is concerned, !e isa solidary co*de)tor+
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks