Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    AnDrew Bautista Cayabyab
    Fideliza Aglibot obtained a loan from Ingersol Santia for Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), where she was the manager. As a guaranty for payment, Aglibot issued 11 post-dated personal checks from her own account. When the checks bounced due to insufficient funds, Santia demanded payment from PLCC and Aglibot. The appellate court ruled Aglibot was personally liable as an accommodation party under the Negotiable Instruments Law since she issued her own checks to accommodate PLCC's loan. As a surety, Aglibot's liability was immediate, direct, primary and unconditional like a solidary co-debtor. The Supreme Court affirmed Aglibot was personally liable

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    AnDrew Bautista Cayabyab
    14 views1 page
    Fideliza Aglibot obtained a loan from Ingersol Santia for Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), where she was the manager. As a guaranty for payment, Aglibot issued 11 post-dated personal checks from her own account. When the checks bounced due to insufficient funds, Santia demanded payment from PLCC and Aglibot. The appellate court ruled Aglibot was personally liable as an accommodation party under the Negotiable Instruments Law since she issued her own checks to accommodate PLCC's loan. As a surety, Aglibot's liability was immediate, direct, primary and unconditional like a solidary co-debtor. The Supreme Court affirmed Aglibot was personally liable

    Original Description:

    Case Digest - Commercial Law

    Original Title

    CASE DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fideliza Aglibot obtained a loan from Ingersol Santia for Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), where she was the manager. As a guaranty for payment, Aglibot issued 11 post-dated personal checks from her own account. When the checks bounced due to insufficient funds, Santia demanded payment from PLCC and Aglibot. The appellate court ruled Aglibot was personally liable as an accommodation party under the Negotiable Instruments Law since she issued her own checks to accommodate PLCC's loan. As a surety, Aglibot's liability was immediate, direct, primary and unconditional like a solidary co-debtor. The Supreme Court affirmed Aglibot was personally liable

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views1 page

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    AnDrew Bautista Cayabyab
    Fideliza Aglibot obtained a loan from Ingersol Santia for Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), where she was the manager. As a guaranty for payment, Aglibot issued 11 post-dated personal checks from her own account. When the checks bounced due to insufficient funds, Santia demanded payment from PLCC and Aglibot. The appellate court ruled Aglibot was personally liable as an accommodation party under the Negotiable Instruments Law since she issued her own checks to accommodate PLCC's loan. As a surety, Aglibot's liability was immediate, direct, primary and unconditional like a solidary co-debtor. The Supreme Court affirmed Aglibot was personally liable

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    AGLIBOT v.

    SANTIA
    G.R. No. 185945 December 05, 2012

    NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW


    RATIO: The relation between an accommodation party and the party
    accommodated is, in effect, one of principal and surety — the accommodation
    party being the surety. It is a settled rule that a surety is bound equally and
    absolutely with the principal and is deemed an original promisor and debtor from
    the beginning. The liability is immediate and direct.

    FACTS: Engr. Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), through its Manager, petitioner
    Fideliza J. Aglibot (Aglibot) obtained a loan to Ingersol L. Santia (Santia), which loan is
    evidenced by a promissory note. As a guaranty for the payment of the note, Aglibot issued and
    delivered to Santia eleven (11) post-dated personal checks drawn from her own personal account.
    Upon presentment of the checks for payment, they were dishonored by the bank for having been
    drawn against insufficient funds or closed account. Santia thus demanded payment from PLCC
    and Aglibot of the face value of the checks, but neither of them heeded his demand.
    Consequently, 11 Informations for violation of B.P. 22 were filed before the MTCC.
    MTCC acquitted Aglibot, while the CA ruled that Aglibot is personally liable for the loan.

    Aglibot admitted that she did obtain a loan from Santia, but claimed that she did so in behalf of
    PLCC and that she was merely a guarantor of the obligation.

    ISSUE: Is Aglibot personally liable on the checks?

    HELD: Yes, Aglibot is personally liable for the check for being an accommodation party
    as provided for under the Negotiable Instruments Law. The appellate court ruled that by issuing
    her own post-dated checks, Aglibot thereby bound herself personally and solidarily to pay
    Santia, and dismissed her claim that she issued her said checks in her official capacity as PLCC’s
    manager merely to guarantee the investment of Santia. The facts present a clear situation where
    Aglibot, as the manager of PLCC, agreed to accommodate its loan to Santia by issuing her own
    post-dated checks in payment thereof.

    The relation between an accommodation party and the party accommodated is, in effect, one of
    principal and surety — the accommodation party being the surety. It is a settled rule that a surety
    is bound equally and absolutely with the principal and is deemed an original promisor and debtor
    from the beginning. The liability is immediate and direct. Unlike in a contract of suretyship, the
    liability of the accommodation party remains not only primary but also unconditional to a holder
    for value, such that 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.

    You might also like