AJ EVELAND VS.

THE EASTERN MINING from the services of Eveland while he was on his
COMPANY trip to the US in the interest of the said
company

FACTS:
ISSUE: WON the facts admitted (those which
Eveland commenced an action against
were underlined) were dependable upon the
Eastern Mining Company for recovery of sum of
result of Eveland’s efforts in behalf of the
money. Allegedly, AJ Eveland rendered services
company.
as an engineer and general agent of Eastern
Mining at a salary of $250 per month from on or HELD: No
about October 15, 1906 until April 15, 1907.
Eveland alleged that there was still due and
unpaid $125 based on the said contract of RATIO: Facts admitted constituted an absolute
employment. offer and an absolute acceptance and therefore
together constitute a contract, in accordance
Eveland also alleged that he had been
with the terms of the above mentioned exhibits.
employed by Eastern Mining on May 1, 1907, to
visit the US in the interests of the company and The evidence admitted for the purpose of
the latter promised to pay him $250 as salary showing that the payment of the salary and
per month and the necessary expenses of his expenses of the plaintiff depended upon
voyage.He returned to the PH on or about whether or not the efforts of the plaintiff in
October 15, 1907 and the employment was the United States were successful was
terminated on October 25, 1907. From these, inadmissible under the contract. It would be
Eveland alleged that Eastern Mining still owes extremely dangerous to permit testimony of
Cleveland $2,580 under said contract. this character to vary the terms of written
contracts. There is nothing in the record
In support of his claim, Eveland introduced
which shows that at the time the offer and
a letter written by him to the Company (Exhibit
acceptance were made that the parties to the
B) and the company through a resolution
said offer and acceptance had the remotest idea
confirmed the employment of Eveland by The
that the payment of the salary and expenses
Eastern Mining Company as a mining engineer
mentioned in said contract depended upon the
and general manager of said company according
successful result of the efforts of the plaintiff
to the terms mentioned in the letter (exhibit B).
while on his trip to the United States.
Eveland was also given, full and general powers
of attorney to represent the company in any
and all matters in the US. Also, Eveland
presented exhibit C an itemized statement of
his expenditures during his trip to the US.

Eastern Mining presented a general denial *Phrases underlined and in bold characters are
of each and all of the facts alleged by Eveland. the facts admitted

The lower court found that there was due

to Eveland from the Eastern Mining Company
the sum of $5,310.

On appeal, the Company questioned the

sufficiency of the evidence adduced during the
trial to support the judgment of the lower court.

Now, the Eastern Mining Company

contends that it received no benefit whatever
TOWN SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC. VS. CA promissory note that they signed to
accommodate Pilarita.

Hipolito's allegation that it was the bank's

FACTS:
Spouses Hipolito applied for and were
granted a loan in the amount of P700,000 for
which they executed and delivered to Town
Savings and Loan Bank (or TSLB) a promissory
note.
For failure to keep monthly payments, the
obligors were deemed to have defaulted.
Notices were given but ignored.
Spouses Hipolito denied being personally
liable on the P700,000 promissory note which
they executed. The loan was alleged for the
account of Pilarita Hipolito (Miguel Hipolito’s
sister). Sps Hipolito nt having received any part
of the loan were mere guarantors.
The RTC held that Sps Hipolito liable as
accommodation parties on the PN.
president who induced him to sign the
promissory note so that the bank would not
violate the Central Bank's regulation limiting the
amount that TSLB could lend out. Besides being
self-serving, Hipolito's testimony was
uncorroborated by any other evidence on
record, therefore, it should have been received
with extreme caution.
The Hipolitos in signing the promissory
note was not so much to enable the Bank to
grant a loan to Pilarita but for the latter to be
able to obtain the full amount of the loan that
she needed at the time. In the ordinary course
of things, the borrower, Pilarita, not the Bank,
would have requested her brother Miguel to
accommodate her so she could have the P1.4
million that she wanted to borrow from the
Bank.

The CA found on the otherhand that the

Hipolitos did not accommodate Pilarita but the
TSLB whose lending authority was restricted by
the size of its loan prtfolio. Hence, the Hipolitos
were relieved from any liability.
ISSUE: WON the Hipolitos are liable on the
promissory note which they executed in favor of
Town Savings and Loan Bank.
HELD: Yes
RATIO:
CONCLUSION:
There was no agreement here, written or
verbal, that in signing the promissory note,
Miguel and Alicia Hipolito were acting as agents
for the money lender, the Bank. The
consideration of the note signed by the
Hipolitos was received by them through Pilarita.
They acted as agents of Pilarita, not of the bank.
They signed the promissory note as a favor to
Pilarita, to help her raise the funds that she
needed. It was Pilarita whom they
accommodated, not the bank.

“An accommodation party is one who has

signed the instrument as maker, drawer,
indorser, without receiving value therefor and
for the purpose of lending his name to some
other person…He receives no part of the
consideration for the instrument but assumes
liability to the other parties thereto because he
wants to accommodate another."

There is no question that the Sps Hipolito

signed the promissory note in order to enable
Pilarita H. Reyes, who is Miguel Hipolito's sister,
to borrow the total sum of P1.4 million from
TSLB. The Hipolitos are liable to the bank on the