Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 87 views

    Arcellana - PBC V Aruego (d2017)

    Uploaded by

    huhah303
    This case summary discusses the Philippine Bank of Commerce v Jose M. Aruego case. The bank sued Aruego to recover 35,000 pesos plus interest for the cost of printing a periodical. Aruego accepted drafts from the printer to pay for the printing, but did not disclose that he was signing on behalf of a principal. The court ruled that by not indicating he was an agent, Aruego was personally liable under the Negotiable Instruments Law. The court also found that while Aruego's delay in filing was excusable, he did not prove he had a meritorious defense. The court therefore affirmed the lower court's denial of Aruego's petition for relief of judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    Arcellana - PBC V Aruego (d2017)

    Uploaded by

    huhah303
    87 views1 page
    This case summary discusses the Philippine Bank of Commerce v Jose M. Aruego case. The bank sued Aruego to recover 35,000 pesos plus interest for the cost of printing a periodical. Aruego accepted drafts from the printer to pay for the printing, but did not disclose that he was signing on behalf of a principal. The court ruled that by not indicating he was an agent, Aruego was personally liable under the Negotiable Instruments Law. The court also found that while Aruego's delay in filing was excusable, he did not prove he had a meritorious defense. The court therefore affirmed the lower court's denial of Aruego's petition for relief of judgment.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    Arcellana- Pbc v Aruego [d2017]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case summary discusses the Philippine Bank of Commerce v Jose M. Aruego case. The bank sued Aruego to recover 35,000 pesos plus interest for the cost of printing a periodical. Aruego accepted drafts from the printer to pay for the printing, but did not disclose that he was signing on behalf of a principal. The court ruled that by not indicating he was an agent, Aruego was personally liable under the Negotiable Instruments Law. The court also found that while Aruego's delay in filing was excusable, he did not prove he had a meritorious defense. The court therefore affirmed the lower court's denial of Aruego's petition for relief of judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    Arcellana - PBC V Aruego (d2017)

    Uploaded by

    huhah303
    This case summary discusses the Philippine Bank of Commerce v Jose M. Aruego case. The bank sued Aruego to recover 35,000 pesos plus interest for the cost of printing a periodical. Aruego accepted drafts from the printer to pay for the printing, but did not disclose that he was signing on behalf of a principal. The court ruled that by not indicating he was an agent, Aruego was personally liable under the Negotiable Instruments Law. The court also found that while Aruego's delay in filing was excusable, he did not prove he had a meritorious defense. The court therefore affirmed the lower court's denial of Aruego's petition for relief of judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    Author: Patrick V.

    Arcellana

    Phil bank of Commerce v Aruego

    Petition: Petition for relief of judgment
    Plaintiff: Philippine Bank of Commerce
    Defendant: Jose M. Aruego
    Ponencia: Fernandez, J

    DOCTRINE: A party who signs a bill of exchange as an agent, but fails to
    disclose his principal, becomes principally liable for the drafts he accepted.

    FACTS:
    1. PBC instituted a case against Aruego for the sum of 35,000 pesos with
    daily interest containing 22 causes of action for 22 transactions that they
    engaged with.

    2. The sum represents the cost of printing of "World Current events", a
    periodical published by defendant. The payment of the printing was done by
    obtaining a credit accommodation from the bank.

    3. The printer (drawer), Encal Press and Photo-engraving, collected the cost
    of printing by drawing a draft against the bank and sending it later to Aruego
    for acceptance.

    4. An added security, bank required the defendant to execute trust receipts if
    favor of the bank wherein defendant undertook to hold in trust for the bank
    the periodicals and to sell them to turn over the proceeds to the bank and
    payments of obligations from the draft.

    5. Several motions were filed by both parties, together with defenses,
    alleging Aruego in default in filing motions. Thus, 2 appeals reached the CA.

    ISSUE:
    1. WON the defendant was in default
    2. WON Aruego signed the bills of exchange in a representative capacity

    PROVISIONS:
    Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Law
    Liability of person signing as agent, and so forth. - Where the instrument
    contains or a person adds to his signature words indicating that he signs for or
    on behalf of a principal or in a representative capacity, he is not liable on the
    instrument if he was duly authorized; but the mere addition of words describing
    him as an agent, or as filling a representative character, without disclosing his
    principal, does not exempt him from personal liability.


    RULING + RATIO:
    1. NO.
    For the court to set aside an order of default, the defendant must
    show that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
    excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense. In this case,
    the delay was excusable, given that he only received the order at 5:00pm of
    March 11, and submitted an answer the following day. This is because there
    is no way that he could submit an answer on the last day of the reglementary
    period, which is March 11, because the courts also held office up to 5:00pm.
    However, he failed to show that he has a meritorious defense.

    2. NO.

    Upon further inspection, it was shown that he was not signing as a
    representative of the Philippine Education Foundation Company. He merely
    signed as "JOSE ARUEGO (Acceptor) (SGD) JOSE ARUEGO. By not
    disclosing his principal, as stated by Sec. 20 of NIL, he is personally liable for
    the drafts he accepted. Also, he cannot say that he signed as an
    accommodation party, because in this case, he signed as a drawee/acceptor
    and as such, he became primarily and personally liable for the drafts.

    DISPOSITION:
    WHEREFORE the order appealed from in Civil Case 42066 of the CFI of
    Manila denying the petition for relief of judgment in this case is hereby
    affirmed, without pronouncement to costs.

    You might also like