Araneta vs.
Perez ISSUE
G.R. Number L-20787-8 | 14 SCRA 498 | June 29, 1965 | Bautista Angelo, J.
Petition: Appeal from CFI Order
Petitioner: J. Antonio Araneta
Respondent: Antonio Perez
Section 60, Negotiable Instruments Law
DOCTRINE
Maker warrants that he will pay according to the tenor of the instrument.
Payee is not concerned with how the maker supposedly paid the value of
the instrument in another way or manner. Payees only concern is that
maker pays the value of the instrument according to its tenor, as per
Section 60 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
Section 60, Negotiable Instruments Law
Sect. 60. Liability of maker. The maker of a negotiable instrument by making it
engages that he will pay it according to its tenor, and admits the existence of
the payee and his then capacity to indorse.
FACTS
Overview of Petitioners and Respondents
o Petitioner Payee of the promissory note, trustee of trust where Angela
Perez y Tuason was beneficiary
o Respondent Maker of promissory note, father of beneficiary (Angela
Perez y Tuason)
Perez executed a promissory note to pay Araneta or order P3,700.00, 119
days from date of issuance
o Also stated in the promissory note is that if it is not paid on maturity,
interest at 9% per annum kicks in, with additional P370.00 for attorneys
fees
Perez failed to pay despite demand, leading Araneta to file a complaint for
collection with the Municipal Court of Manila
o Perez admitted to executing the promissory note and his failure to pay
o But Perez averred that he was not able to pay because he applied the
proceeds of the note to the payment of the medical treatment of his minor
daughter, Angela Perez y Tuason
Angela Perez y Tuason was the beneficiary of the trust where
Araneta was the trustee; that the treatment was supposed to be
reimbursed from the trust estate
Perez set up a counterclaim through damages
o The Municipal Court ruled in favor of Araneta
Perez filed a complaint against Araneta with the Municipal Court of Manila
where Perez repeated the allegations in the earlier case
o This was also dismissed
The court a quo consolidated the two cases and affirmed such rulings
1. W/N Perez may argue against paying according to the tenor of the promissory
note NO
RULING & RATIO
1. Perez, as maker, cannot argue against paying according to the tenor of the
promissory note he himself executed.
a. According to Section 60 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, the
maker warrants that he will pay according to the tenor of the
instrument. The payee is not/never concerned with how the maker
supposedly paid the value of the instrument in another way or manner.
The payees only concern is that maker pays the value of the
instrument according to its tenor
i. Court: Perez bound himself personally in the promissory
note; he cannot shift to another the responsibility of paying
its value without the consent of the payee
ii. Court: Perez cannot now escape liability as maker by
alleging that he spent the money for medical treatment of his
daughter since it is not the payees concern to know how said
proceeds should be spent. Payees interest is merely to see
that the note is to paid according to its terms/tenor.
iii. Perez: Recoupment; that he had to borrow P3,700.00 for the
medical treatment of his minor daughter and that Perez
asked Araneta for advancement of the said amount with the
concurrence of the beneficiaries but Araneta, as trustee,
refused, though he offered to lend the money out of his own
pocket, and so Perez executed the promissory note in
question
1. Court: These are irrelevant and immaterial and will
not affect his personal liability as maker of the note.
Allegations of the existence of the trust and its
mismanagement by Araneta has nothing to do with
the fact that Perez is the maker of the promissory
note and is personally liable to pay to Araneta
according to its tenor. Neither has the allegation that
Perez used the proceeds for the medical treatment
of his minor daughter anything to do with his
personal obligation and liability because the
destination of the proceeds of the note is certainly
not the concern of Araneta. Aranetas sole concern
is that Perez, as maker, should pay the P3,700.00
to him upon maturity and, if it was overdue (and
indeed it was), Perez should pay interest and
attorneys fees too.
DISPOSITION
Orders appealed from affirmed, interest to start at date of extrajudicial demand
Page 1 of 1