Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tomas Ang Vs Associated Bank (532 SCRA 244)
Tomas Ang Vs Associated Bank (532 SCRA 244)
RELOJO | 2D
TOMAS ANG vs. ASSOCIATED BANK AND ANTONIO ANG ENG LIONG 532 SCRA 244 Sec. 29 Liability of Accommodation Party FACTS: In 1979, Antonio and Tomas obtained a 50k loan, and a 30k loan, both evidenced by separate promissory notes payable solidarily. The loan was to earn 14% interest rate per annum, 2% service charge per annum, 1% penalty charge per month from due date until fully paid, and attorney's fees equivalent to 20% of the outstanding obligation. Despite repeated demands, Antonio and Tomas failed to pay. By 1990, the total indebtedness was P539,638.96. Associate Bank then filed a collection suit against Antonio Ang Eng Liong (principal debtor) and petitioner Tomas Ang (co-maker) for the two (2) promissory notes. program PDIC purchased the banks assets subject to a buy-back agreement. The notes were held by the Asset Privatization Trust so Associated Bank was not a holer in due course.
Antonio admitted to have secured a 80k loan but pleaded for a more reasonable computation. He alleges the bank was collecting excessive interest, penalty charges, and attorney's fees despite knowledge that his business was destroyed by fire, hence, he had no source of income for several years. Tomas interposed that the bank is not the real party in interest as it is not the holder of the promissory notes, much less a holder for value or a holder in due course. The bank knew that he did not receive any valuable consideration for affixing his signatures but merely lent his name as an accommodation party. The note was completed in excess of or contrary to the authority given by him, because he agreed to sign on Antonios representation that he would only borrow 30k. He signed the 2nd note on the fraudulent claim of Antonio that his first loan did not push through. Antonio was given extension without Tomas consent and knowledge. The waiver of presentment for payment and notice of dishonor in the notes was against public policy. The notes had been impaired because they werent presented and demands were made years after they fell due when Antonio could no longer pay them Associated Bank countered that it is the real party in interest and is the holder since the Associated Banking Corporation and Associated Citizens Bank are its predecessors-in-interest. WON Tomas received money in consideration of the two (2) loans and that such was known to the bank is immaterial because being an accommodation maker, he is considered as a solidary debtor who is primarily liable. The bank retorted that the notes were complete at the time of the delivery, and even assuming they werent complete, the NIL provides that the bank has the prima facie authority to complete it. Moreover, it is presumed that Tomas who signed as a maker signed the document with full knowledge of its content. The bank also noted that Tomas, a prominent businessman in Davao City, was already in estoppel since despite receipt of several demand letters there was not a single protest raised. The bank likewise denied Tomas claims of extensions granted, and new stipulations imposed. Lastly, the bank claims that Tomas express waiver was actually not necessary because he was a solidary debtor so he was absolutely required to pay.
On the basis of the evidence presented ex parte, the trial court ordered Antonio to pay 80k plus 14% interest and 2% interest. The overdue penalty charge and attorney's fees were, however, reduced for being excessive. When the court set the pre-trial conference between the bank and Tomas, Tomas raised lack of jurisdiction in view of the finality of the previous decision. He claims to have been released from his obligation as a solidary guarantor and accommodation party because, by the bank's actions, he is now precluded from asserting his cross-claim against Antonio. Tomas motion to dismiss and MR was denied so he filed a petition for certiorari. In the certiorari petition, the CA annulled the portion of the order of the trial court setting ex parte presentation of evidence against Antonio, the decision based on such evidence, and the writ of execution. Trial ensued between the bank and Tomas. Tomas filed a Motion for Production of Evidence (to reproduce the notes, to see Antonios tax declarations, etc) which was denied. Tomas offered in evidence a copy of the Trust Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the Asset Privatization Trust, certified by the notary public, and news clippings. On the basis of these, the trial court ruled against the bank. The AB was under a rehabilitation program, and that under said