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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    PNB vs. Concepcion Mining, 5 SCRA 745

    Uploaded by

    Leslie Joy Mingo
    This case involved a promissory note signed by Vicente Legarda as president of Concepcion Mining Company and also signed by Jose S. Sarte. The Philippine National Bank sued to recover the amount owed on the note. The court ruled that based on Section 17(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law and Article 1216 of the Civil Code, Legarda and Sarte were jointly and severally liable on the note as co-signers. Therefore, the bank could proceed against either Legarda or Sarte individually to collect the full amount owed, and it was unnecessary to include Legarda's estate as a defendant since his death did not absolve his liability on the note.

    Copyright:

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

    PNB vs. Concepcion Mining, 5 SCRA 745

    Uploaded by

    Leslie Joy Mingo
    76 views2 pages
    This case involved a promissory note signed by Vicente Legarda as president of Concepcion Mining Company and also signed by Jose S. Sarte. The Philippine National Bank sued to recover the amount owed on the note. The court ruled that based on Section 17(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law and Article 1216 of the Civil Code, Legarda and Sarte were jointly and severally liable on the note as co-signers. Therefore, the bank could proceed against either Legarda or Sarte individually to collect the full amount owed, and it was unnecessary to include Legarda's estate as a defendant since his death did not absolve his liability on the note.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a promissory note signed by Vicente Legarda as president of Concepcion Mining Company and also signed by Jose S. Sarte. The Philippine National Bank sued to recover the amount owed on the note. The court ruled that based on Section 17(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law and Article 1216 of the Civil Code, Legarda and Sarte were jointly and severally liable on the note as co-signers. Therefore, the bank could proceed against either Legarda or Sarte individually to collect the full amount owed, and it was unnecessary to include Legarda's estate as a defendant since his death did not absolve his liability on the note.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    76 views2 pages

    PNB vs. Concepcion Mining, 5 SCRA 745

    Uploaded by

    Leslie Joy Mingo
    This case involved a promissory note signed by Vicente Legarda as president of Concepcion Mining Company and also signed by Jose S. Sarte. The Philippine National Bank sued to recover the amount owed on the note. The court ruled that based on Section 17(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law and Article 1216 of the Civil Code, Legarda and Sarte were jointly and severally liable on the note as co-signers. Therefore, the bank could proceed against either Legarda or Sarte individually to collect the full amount owed, and it was unnecessary to include Legarda's estate as a defendant since his death did not absolve his liability on the note.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Philippine National Bank vs. Conception Mining Company, Inc.

    GR No. L-16968, July 31, 1962


    Labrador, J.:

    Doctrines:
    Sec. 17 (g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides that if the language of the
    instrument is ambiguous or there are omissions therein, an instrument containing the
    word “I promise to pay” is signed by two or more persons, applying the rules of
    construction, these two or more persons are deemed to be jointly and severally liable
    thereon.
    Article 1216 of the Civil Code provides that the creditor may proceed against any
    one of the solidary debtors or some of them simultaneously. The demand made against
    one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against
    the others so long as the debt has not been fully collected.

    Facts:
    The plaintiff bank filed an action to recover from the defendants the promissory note which
    reads as follows:

    “After ninety (90) days, for the value received, I promised to pay to the order of PNB.”
    “In case it is necessary to collect this note by or through an attorney-at-law, the makers
    and endorsers shall pay ten percent (10%) of the amount due on the note as attorney's
    fees, which in no case shall be less than P100.00 exclusive of all costs and fees allowed
    by law as stipulated in the contract of real estate mortgage. Demand and Dishonor
    Waived. Holder may accept partial payment reserving his right of recourse again each
    and all endorsers.”

    (Purpose — mining industry)


    CONCEPCION MINING COMPANY, INC.,
    By:
    (Sgd.) VICENTE LEGARDA
    President
    (Sgd.) VICENTE LEGARDA
    (Sgd.) JOSE S SARTE
    "Please issue check to —
    Mr. Jose S. Sarte"

    The note was signed by Vicente Legarda, the president of the defendant company and
    Jose S. Sarte. Don Vicente L Legarda died, and his estate is in the process of judicial
    determination. Based on allegation, it is prayed that the estate of the deceased Legarda
    be included as party-defendant.

    The CFI ruled that the inclusion of the same is unnecessary and immaterial in accordance
    with the provisions of Art. 1216 and Sec. 17(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
    A motion to reconsider the decision was denied and defendants presented a petition for
    relief, asking that decision be suspended but was also denied. Hence, this present case.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the estate of Legarda should be held solidarily liable

    Ruling:
    Sec. 17 (g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides that if the language of
    the instrument is ambiguous or there are omissions therein, an instrument containing the
    word “I promise to pay” is signed by two or more persons, applying the rules of
    construction, these two or more persons are deemed to be jointly and severally liable
    thereon.
    Article 1216 of the Civil Code provides that the creditor may proceed against
    any one of the solidary debtors or some of them simultaneously. The demand made
    against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be
    directed against the others so long as the debt has not been fully collected.

    In view of the above quoted provisions, the Court ruled in the negative. As the promissory
    note was deemed executed as jointly and severally by the same parties, namely,
    Concepcion Mining Company, Inc, and Vicente L. Legarda and Jose S. Sarte, the payee
    of the promissory note had the right to hold any one or any two of the signers of the
    promissory note responsible for the payment of the amount of the note.

    You might also like