Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Aglibot Vs Santia

    Uploaded by

    Alexylle Garsula de Concepcion
    Fideliza J. Aglibot issued 11 post-dated personal checks to Engr. Ingersol L. Santia as security for a P2.5 million loan Santia made to Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), where Aglibot was the manager. When the checks bounced due to insufficient funds, Santia demanded payment from PLCC and Aglibot. The Supreme Court ruled that Aglibot was an accommodation party based on Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, as she signed the checks without receiving value, lending her name to PLCC. As an accommodation party, Aglibot is directly liable to Santia for the checks, without Santia needing to first pursue PLCC

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aglibot Vs Santia

    Uploaded by

    Alexylle Garsula de Concepcion
    2K views1 page
    Fideliza J. Aglibot issued 11 post-dated personal checks to Engr. Ingersol L. Santia as security for a P2.5 million loan Santia made to Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), where Aglibot was the manager. When the checks bounced due to insufficient funds, Santia demanded payment from PLCC and Aglibot. The Supreme Court ruled that Aglibot was an accommodation party based on Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, as she signed the checks without receiving value, lending her name to PLCC. As an accommodation party, Aglibot is directly liable to Santia for the checks, without Santia needing to first pursue PLCC

    Original Description:

    Credit Transaction Case

    Original Title

    Aglibot vs Santia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fideliza J. Aglibot issued 11 post-dated personal checks to Engr. Ingersol L. Santia as security for a P2.5 million loan Santia made to Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), where Aglibot was the manager. When the checks bounced due to insufficient funds, Santia demanded payment from PLCC and Aglibot. The Supreme Court ruled that Aglibot was an accommodation party based on Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, as she signed the checks without receiving value, lending her name to PLCC. As an accommodation party, Aglibot is directly liable to Santia for the checks, without Santia needing to first pursue PLCC

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    Aglibot Vs Santia

    Uploaded by

    Alexylle Garsula de Concepcion
    Fideliza J. Aglibot issued 11 post-dated personal checks to Engr. Ingersol L. Santia as security for a P2.5 million loan Santia made to Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), where Aglibot was the manager. When the checks bounced due to insufficient funds, Santia demanded payment from PLCC and Aglibot. The Supreme Court ruled that Aglibot was an accommodation party based on Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, as she signed the checks without receiving value, lending her name to PLCC. As an accommodation party, Aglibot is directly liable to Santia for the checks, without Santia needing to first pursue PLCC

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    FIDELIZA J.

    AGLIBOT, Petitioner,
    vs.
    INGERSOL L. SANTIA, Respondent.
    G.R. No. 185945
    December 05, 2012


    FACTS:
    Private respondent-complainant Engr. Ingersol L. Santia loaned the amount
    of P2,500,000.00 to Pacific Lending & Capital Corporation (PLCC), through its Manager,
    petitioner Fideliza J. Aglibot. The loan was evidenced by a Promissory Note dated July 1, 2003,
    issued by Aglibot in behalf of PLCC, payable in one year subject to interest at 24% per annum.
    Allegedly as a guaranty or security for the payment of the note, Aglibot also issued and delivered
    to Santia eleven (11) post-dated personal checks drawn from her own demand account
    maintained at Metrobank, Camiling Branch. Aglibot is a major stockholder of PLCC, with
    headquarters at 27 Casimiro Townhouse, Casimiro Avenue, Zapote, Las Pias, Metro Manila,
    where most of the stockholders also reside.
    Upon presentment of the aforesaid checks for payment, they were dishonored by the bank
    for having been drawn against insufficient funds or closed account. Santia thus demanded
    payment from PLCC and Aglibot of the face value of the checks, but neither of them heeded his
    demand.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Aglibot is an accommodation party or a guaranteeing party? If she is the
    latter, is she benefitted from excussion against Santia?
    HELD:
    Aglibot is an accommodation party and therefore liable to Santia
    The facts below present a clear situation where Aglibot, as the manager of PLCC, agreed
    to accommodate its loan to Santia by issuing her own post-dated checks in payment thereof. She
    is what the Negotiable Instruments Law calls an accommodation party. Concerning the liability
    of an accommodation party, Section 29 of the said law provides:
    Sec. 29. Liability of an 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.
    The mere fact, then, that Aglibot issued her own checks to Santia made her personally
    liable to the latter on her checks without the need for Santia to first go after PLCC for the
    payment of its loan. It would have been otherwise had it been shown that Aglibot was a mere
    guarantor, except that since checks were issued ostensibly in payment for the loan, the provisions
    of the Negotiable Instruments Law must take primacy in application.

    You might also like