Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Travel-On V.

CA (1992)
FACTS:
Arturo S. Miranda
had a revolving credit line with Travel-On. Inc. (Travel-On), a travel agency selling airline tickets on commission basis for and in
behalf of different airline companies
procured tickets from Travel-On on behalf of airline passengers and derived commissions therefrom.
June 14 1972: Travel-On filed bef. the CFI to collect 6 checks issued by Miranda totaling P115,000.00
August 5 1969 - January 16 1970: Travel-On sold and delivered airline tickets to Miranda w/ total price of P278,201.57
paid in cash and 6 checks = P115,000 - all dishonored by the drawee banks
March 1972: paid P10,000.00 reducing his debts to P105,000
Miranda: checks were issued for to "accommodate" Travel-On's General Manager to show the BOD of Travel-On that their
receivables were still good
Travel-On's witness, Elita Montilla: related to situations where its passengers needed money in Hongkong, and upon request of
Travel-On, Miranda would contact his friends in Hongkong to advance Hongkong money to the passenger
CA affirmed CFI: ordered Travel-On to pay Miranda P8,894.91 representing net overpayments by private respondent, moral
damages of P10,000.00 (later increased to P50,000 by CFI and reduced by CA to P20,000) for the wrongful issuance of the writ of
attachment and for the filing of this case, P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and the costs of the suit - decision was because Travel-
On did not show that Miranda had an outstanding balance of P115,000.00
ISSUE: W/N Miranda is liable for the 6 dishonored checks because there was no accomodation
HELD: YES. GRANT due course to the Petition for Review on Certiorari and to REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision of the CA
and trial court
failed to give due importance the checks themselves as evidence of the debt
check which is regular on its face is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration and every person whose
signature appears thereon is deemed to have become a party thereto for value.
negotiable instrument is presumed to have been given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration unless otherwise contradicted and
overcome by other competent evidence
Those checks in themselves constituted evidence of indebtedness of Miranda, evidence not successfully overturned or rebutted by
private respondent.
While the Negotiable Instruments Law does refer to accommodation transactions, no such transaction was here shown
Sec. 29. Liability of accommodation party. An accommodation party is one 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. Such a
person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of taking the instrument, knew him
to be only an accommodation party.
Having issued or indorsed the check, the accommodating party has warranted to the holder in due course that he will pay the
same according to its tenor.
Travel-On obviously was not an accommodated party; it realized no value on the checks which bounced.




Maulini V. Serrano (1914)
FACTS:


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 herei n
mentioned is not completely paid on the 5th day of September, 1912, this instrument will draw interest at the rate of 1 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.
Maulini's business as a broker consisted in looking up and ascertaining persons who had money to loan as well as those who
desired to borrow money and, acting as a mediary, negotiate a loan between the two
Method usually followed: the broker delivered the money personally to the borrower, took note in his own name and immediately
transferred it by indorsement to the lender
done at the special request of the indorsee and simply as a favor to him, the latter stating to the broker that he did not wish his
name to appear on the books of the borrowing company as a lender of money and that he desired that the broker take the note in
his own name, immediately transferring to him title thereto by indorsement
Trial Court: immaterial whether there was a consideration for the transfer or not, as the indorser, under the evidence offered, was
an accommodation indorser.

ISSUES: W/N Serrano was an accomodation indorser

HELD: Judgment reversed.
never was a moment when Serrano was the real owner of the note
The only payment that the broker received was for his services in negotiating the loan.
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
lend his name to the maker, NOT to the holder
indorsement is made as a favor to the indorsee, who requests it, not the better to secure payment, but to relieve himself from a
distasteful situation, and where the only consideration for such indorsement passes from the indorser to the indorsee, the situation
does not present one creating an accommodation indorsement, nor one where there is a consideration sufficient to sustain an
action on the indorsement.

Parol evidence was admissible for the purpose named.


Sadaya V. Sevilla (1967)
FACTS:
March 28, 1949: Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed, jointly and severally, in favor of the BPI, or its order,
a promissory note for P15,000.00 with interest at 8% per annum, payable on demand.
The P15,000.00 proceeds was received by Oscar Varona alone.
Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya signed the promissory note as co-makers only as a favor to Oscar Varona.
June 15, 1950: outstanding balance is P4,850.00. No payment thereafter made.
Oct 16 1952: bank collected from Sadaya total of P5,416.12(w/ int)
Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite repeated demands. V
Victor Sevilla died Francisco Sevilla was named administrator.
Sadaya filed a creditor's claim for the above sum of P5,746.12, plus attorneys fees in the sum of P1,500.00
The administrator resisted the claim upon the averment that the deceased Victor Sevilla "did not receive any amount as
consideration for the promissory note," but signed it only "as surety for Oscar Varona
June 5, 1957: Trial court order the administrator to pay
CA reversed.
ISSUE: W/N Sadaya can claim against the estate of Sevilla as co-accomodation party when Verona as principal debtor is not yet
insolvent

HELD: NO. Affirmed
Varona is bound by the obligation to reimburse Sadaya
solidary accommodation maker who made payment has the right to contribution, from his co-accommodation maker, in the
absence of agreement to the contrary between them, and subject to conditions imposed by law
requisites before one accommodation maker can seek reimbursement from a co-accommodation maker.
ART. 2073. When there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the same debt, the one among them who has paid
may demand of each of the others the share which is proportionally owing from him.
If any of the guarantors should be insolvent, his share shall be borne by the others, including the payer, in the same proportion.
(1) A joint and several accommodation maker of a negotiable promissory note may demand from the principal debtor
reimbursement for the amount that he paid to the payee;
(2) a joint and several accommodation maker who pays on the said promissory note may directly demand reimbursement from his
co-accommodation maker without first directing his action against the principal debtor provided that
(a) he made the payment by virtue of a judicial demand, or -no judicial demand just voluntarily
(b) a principal debtor is insolvent. - Varona is not insolvent