Switch to desktop Register

PNB V. MAZA AND MECENAS 48 PHIL 207 - Accomodation party

PNB V. MAZA AND MECENAS

48 PHIL 207

FACTS:

Maza and Macenas executed a total of five promissory notes. These were not paid at maturity. And to recover the amounts stated on the face of the promissory notes, PNB initiated an action against the two. The special defense posed by the two is that the promissory notes were delivered to
them in blank by a certain Enchaus and were made to sign the notes so that the latter could secure a loan from the bank. They also alleged that they never negotiated the notes with the bank nor have they received any value thereof. They also prayed that Enchaus be impleaded in the
complaint but such was denied. The trial court then held in favor of the bank.

HELD:

The defendants attested to the genuineness of the instruments sued on. Neither did they point out any mistake in regard to the amount and interest that the lower court sentenced them to pay. Given such, the defendants are liable. They appear as the makers of the promissory notes
and as such, they must keep their engagement and pay as promised.

And assuming that they are accommodation parties, the defendants having signed the instruments without receiving value thereof, for the purpose of lending their names to some other person, are still liable for the promissory notes. The law now is such that an accommodation party cannot claim no benefit as such, but he is liable according to the face of his undertaking, the same as he himself financially interest in the transaction. It is also no defense to say that they didn't receive the value of the notes. To fasten
liability however to an accommodation maker, it is not necessary that any consideration should move to him. The accommodation which supports the promise of the accommodation maker is that parted with by the person taking the note and received by the person accommodated.