ARTHUR ALDRIN R.

RAMOS

Ponce v. CA

Ang v. Associated Bank

Insular Drug v. PNB

Int’l Corp Bank v. Sps Gueco

1. PONCE V. CA

FACTS:
Private respondent executed a promissory note in favor of petitioner payable in Philippine currency.
Respondent failed to pay; hence, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery. Respondent argued that the
contract under consideration involved the payment of US dollars, which is, pursuant to RA 529 null and
void.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioner may still recover.

HELD:
Petitioner may still recover. It is to be noted that, pursuant to RA 529, that while an agreement to pay in
dollar is null and void, what the law specifically prohibits is the payment in currency other than legal
tender. It does not defeat a creditor’s claim for payment. What RA 529 prohibits is that a creditor cannot
oblige the debtor to in other currency.

2. ANG V. ASSOCIATED BANK

FACTS:
The case revolves around two promissory notes made and signed by Antonio Liong, and was also signed
by petitioner as co-maker. Antonio Liong defaulted in the payment due in the two promissory notes;
hence, a suit for recovery was filed against him and petitioner by the respondent bank. Petitioner argues
that he should not be liable for the non-payment of the promissory notes since he did not receive any
valuable considerations.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner is liable for the promissory notes albeit not receiving any valuable considerations.

HELD:

Petitioner is liable for he is deemed to be an accommodation party to the instrument. Sec. 29 of the NIL
provides that any person who signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser; received
no value for it; and signed the instrument for the purpose of lending his name is deemed to be an
accommodation party. Moreover, an accommodation party is primarily liable for the instrument he
signed. Therefore, petitioner, being an accommodation party to the promissory note, is primarily liable
thereto.

3. INSULAR DRUG V. PNB

ARTHUR ALDRIN R. RAMOS

FACTS:
Foerster, a salesman and collector of the petitioner, fraudulently deposited the checks of petitioner to
his account. Foerster, upon getting caught by petitioner, committed suicide. Petitioner then filed against
PNB for the amount that Foerster took from them. Petitioner’s argument is that PNB allowed Foerster to
indorse the checks and placed it to his personal account albeit not having the authority to do so for
being a mere collector and salesman. PNB argued that it should not be responsible for the negligence
committed by its clerk.

ISSUE:
Whether PNB may be held liable.

HELD:
PNB is liable. It is evident that the checks belong to petitioner and not to Foerster. A collector and
salesman have no authority to indorse or withdraw the amount in the checks without the authorization
of the company. When PNB clerk credited the checks to the personal account of Foerster without the
authority of petitioner, it made itself responsible to petitioner. The bank will have to stand the loss
occasioned by the negligence of its agents.

4. INT’L CORP BANK V. SPS GUECO

FACTS:
Respondent obtained a loan from petitioner to purchase a car. With that, respondent executed a
promissory note which was payable in monthly installment. Respondent then defaulted payment.
Petitioner then detained the car. Respondent presented a manager’s check to petitioner, but petitioner
declined to release the car because respondent refused to sign the JMD. Thereafter, the manager’s
check became stale, with that, respondent filed against petitioner for fraud. Respondent avers that
petitioner should have released the car upon its presentment of the manager’s check, and the signing of
the JMD is not needed before its release. Respondent furthered that the refusal of the bank to encash
the check is with bad faith.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioner may be held liable for fraud.

HELD:
Petitioner is not liable for fraud. It may be true that a bank may be held liable for the damages suffered
for the delay or non-presentment of a valid check; however, in the case at bar, the refusal of the bank to
encash the check is with valid reasons since respondent refused to sign the Joint Motion to Dismiss
(JMD). Bad faith or negligence is not present. Petitioner is not liable.
ARTHUR ALDRIN R. RAMOS