This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Thus, in guaranty, the guarantor "binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so." The liability of the guarantor is secondary to that of the principal debtor because he "cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor, and has resorted to all the legal remedies against the debtor."[18] In contrast, the surety is solidarily bound to the obligation of the principal debtor.[19] | |||||
|
2013-03-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is true that, as a rule, no issue may be raised on appeal unless it has been brought before the lower tribunal for its consideration.[35] Higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal.[36] However, as with most procedural rules, this maxim is subject to exceptions.[37] In this regard, the Court's ruling in Mendoza v. Bautista[38] is instructive, to wit: x x x Indeed, our rules recognize the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. Section 8 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court provides: | |||||
|
2012-06-27 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Worth noting is that Servando's liability was joint and solidary with his co-debtors. In a solidary obligation, the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.[27] The choice to determine against whom the collection is enforced belongs to the creditor until the obligation is fully satisfied.[28] Thus, the obligation was being enforced against Servando, who, in order to escape liability, should have presented evidence to prove that his obligation had already been cancelled by the new obligation or that another debtor had assumed his place. In case of change in the person of the debtor, the substitution must be clear and express,[29] and made with the consent of the creditor.[30] Yet, these circumstances did not obtain herein, proving precisely that Servando remained a solidary debtor against whom the entire or part of the obligation might be enforced. | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Third, as an accommodation party, Gonzales is solidarily liable with the spouses Panlilio for the loans. In Ang v. Associated Bank,[19] quoting the definition of an accommodation party under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, the Court cited that an accommodation party is a person "who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person."[20] The Court further explained: [A]n accommodation party is one who meets all the three requisites, viz: (1) he must be a party to the instrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser; (2) he must not receive value therefor; and (3) he must sign for the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person. An accommodation party lends his name to enable the accommodated party to obtain credit or to raise money; he receives no part of the consideration for the instrument but assumes liability to the other party/ies thereto. The accommodation party is liable on the instrument to a holder for value even though the holder, at the time of taking the instrument, knew him or her to be merely an accommodation party, as if the contract was not for accommodation. | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Likewise, contrary to private respondent's contentions, petitioner cannot be considered liable as an accommodation party for Check No. 58832. Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law defines an accommodation party as a person "who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person." As gleaned from the text, an accommodation party is one who meets all the three requisites, viz: (1) he must be a party to the instrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser; (2) he must not receive value therefor; and (3) he must sign for the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person.[15] An accommodation party lends his name to enable the accommodated party to obtain credit or to raise money; he receives no part of the consideration for the instrument but assumes liability to the other party/ies thereto.[16] The first two elements are present here, however there is insufficient evidence presented in the instant case to show the presence of the third requisite. All that the evidence shows is that petitioner signed Check No. 58832, which is drawn against his personal account. The said check, dated December 15, 2000, corresponds to the value of 24 sets of tires received by Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation on August 29, 2000.[17] There is no showing of when petitioner issued the check and in what capacity. In the absence of concrete evidence it cannot just be assumed that petitioner intended to lend his name to the corporation. Hence, petitioner cannot be considered as an accommodation party. | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| At any rate, Co's assertion that he merely acted as an accommodation party for METRO RENT cannot release him from liability under the note. An accommodation party who lends his name to enable the accommodated party to obtain credit or raise money is liable on the instrument to a holder for value even if he receives no part of the consideration.[13] He assumes the obligation to the other party and binds himself to pay the note on its due date. By signing the note, Co thus became liable for the debt even if he had no direct personal interest in the obligation or did not receive any benefit therefrom. | |||||