PNB vs Maza GR No. 24224, 3 Nov 1925

Plaintiff sued the defendant for the non payment of the promissory notes the later issued and signed. The defendant argued that a certain Echaus went to them and asked them to sign a blank instrument. That the defendant argued that they did not benefited from the said instrument or received its value. The trial court ruled infavor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay the judgement, hence the defendant appeal the said judgement.

Whether the defendant who did not received the value of the note they signed were still liable on the instrument.

Yes, the defendant were still liable, as accommodation parties, the defendants having signed the instruments without receiving value therefore and for the purpose of lending their names to some other person, are still liable on the instruments. The law now is that the accommodation party can claim no benefit as such, but he is liable according to the face of his undertaking, the same as if he were himself financially interested in the transaction. The defense is made to the action that the defendants never received the value of the promissory notes. it is, of course, fundamental that an instrument given without consideration does not create any obligation at law or in equity in favor of the payee. However, to fasten liability upon an accommodation maker, it is not necessary that any consideration should move to him. The consideration which supports the promise of the accommodation maker is that parted with by the person taking the note and received by the person accommodated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: