Switch to desktop Register

MAULINI V. SERRANO 28 PHIL 640 - Accomodation Party

MAULINI V. SERRANO

28 PHIL 640

FACTS:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P3,000, with interest thereon at the rate of 11⁄2 per cent month from September 5, 1912, together with the costs.

The action was brought by the plaintiff upon the contract of indorsement alleged to have been made in his favor by the defendant upon the following promissory note:

3,000.

Due 5th of September, 1912.
We jointly and severally agree to pay to the order of Don Antonio G.
Serrano on or before the 5th day of September, 1912, the sum of three
thousand pesos (P3,000) for value received for commercial operations.
Notice and protest renounced. If the sum herein mentioned is not
completely paid on the 5th day of September, 1912, this instrument will
draw interest at the rate of 11⁄2 per cent per month from the date when
due until the date of its complete payment. The makers hereof agree to
pay the additional sum of P500 as attorney's fees in case of failure to pay
the note.

Manila, June 5, 1912.

(Sgd.) For Padern, Moreno & Co., by F. Moreno, member of the firm. For
Jose Padern, by F. Moreno. Angel Gimenez.

The note was indorsed on the back as follows:

Pay note to the order of Don Fernando Maulini, value received. Manila,
June 5, 1912. (Sgd.) A.G. Serrano.

HELD:

1. The accommodation to which reference is made in Section 29 is not one to the person who takes the note but one to the maker or indorser of the note. It is true, that in the case at bar, it was an
accommodation to the plaintiff, in the popular sense, to have the defendant indorse the note; but it wasn't the accommodation described in the law but rather a mere favor to him and one which in no way bound Serrano. In cases of accommodation indorsement, the indorser makes the indorsement for the accommodation of the maker. Such an indorsement is generally for the purpose of better securing the payment of the note—that is, he lends his name to the maker and not the holder.

2. Parol evidence is admissible for the purposes named. The prohibiton against parol evidence is to prevent alteration, change, modification, or contradiction of the term of a written instrument, admittedly existing, by the use of some parol evidence except in cases specifically named in the action. The case at bar is not one where the evidence offered varies, alters, modifies, or contradicts the terms of the indorsement admittedly existing. The evidence was not offered for that purpose. The purpose was to show that the contract of indorsement ever existed; that the minds of the parties never met on the terms of such contract; that they never mutually agreed to enter into such contract; and that there never
existed a consideration upon which such an agreement could be founded.