Philippine National Bank vs.

Concepcion Mining

Facts:The present action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover from the defendantsthe face of a promissory note the pertinent part of which reads as follows:Manila, March 12, 1954 NINETY DAYS after date, for value Bank received, I promise . to pay tothe order . of the Philippine National

.I n c a s e i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o c o l l e c t t h i s n o t e b y o r t h r o u g h a n attor ney-at-law, the makers and indorsers shall pay ten percent(10%) of the amount due on the note as attorney's fees, which inno case shall be less than P100.00 exclusive of all costs and feesa l l o w e d by law as stipulated i n t h e c o n t r a c t o f r e a l e s t a t e mortgage. Demand and Dishonor Waived . H o l d e r m a y a c c e p t partial payment reserving his right of recourse again each and allindorsers.(Purpose - mining industry)CONCEPCION MINING COMPANY, INC.,By:(Sgd.) VICENTE LEGARDAPresident(Sgd.) VICENTE LEGARDA(Sgd.) JOSE S SARTE"Please issue check to -Mr. Jose S. Sarte"Defendants presented their answer in which they allege that the co-maker thepromissory note Don Vicente L. Legarda died on February 24, 1946 and his estate is int h e p r o c e s s o f j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g s . O n t h e b a s i s o f t h i s allegation it is prayed, as a special defense, that the estate of said deceased Vicente L.Legarda be included as party-defendant. The court in its decision ruled that the inclusionof said defendant is unnecessary and immaterial according to section 17 (g) of theNegotiable Instruments Law. MR was denied.Defendants presented a petition for relief, asking that the effects of the judgmentbe suspended for the reason that the deceased Vicente L. Legarda should have beenincluded as a party-defendant and his liability should be determined in pursuance of thep r o v i s i o n s o f t h e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e . T h i s m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f w a s a l s o d e n i e d , h e n c e defendant appealed to this Court. 3 Issue:WHETHER OR NOT IT IS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE DECEASED DEFENDANT INTHE COMPLAINT.

Held:No it is not necessary. Section 17 (g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides asfollows:SEC. 17. Construction where instrument is ambiguous . - Where the language of the instrument is ambiguous or there are omissions therein, the following rules of construction apply:x x x xxx x x x (g) Where an instrument containing the word "I promise to pay" is signed by twoor more persons, they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable thereon.And Article 1216 of the Civil Code of the Philippines also provides as follows:ART. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall notbe an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the othersso long as the debt has not been fully collected.In view of the above quoted

provisions,

and

as the

promissory

note

was

executed

jointlyand severally by the

same parties, namely, Concepcion Mining Company, Inc. andVicente L. Legarda and Jose S. Sarte, the payee of the promissory note had the right toh o l d a n y o n e o r a n y t w o o f the signers of the promissory note responsible for thepa yment of the a m o u n t o f t h e n o t e . T h i s j u d g m e n t o f t h e l o w e r c o u r t s h o u l d b e affirmed.