G.R. No. L-34539 July 14, 1986EULALIO PRUDENCIO and ELISA T. PRUDENCIO, petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RAMON C. CONCEPCION and MANUEL M. TAMAYO, partners of the defunct partnership Concepcion & Tamayo Construction Company, JOSE TORIBIO, Atty-in-Fact of Concepcion & Tamayo Construction Company, and THE DISTRICT ENGINEER, Puerto Princesa, Palawan, respondents. Fernando R. Mangubat, Jr. for respondent PNB. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:This is a petition for review seeking to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, now the Intermediate Appellate Court, affirming the order of the trial court which dismissed the petitioners' complaint for cancellation of their real estate mortgage and held them jointly and severally liable with the principal debtors on a promissory note which they signed as accommodation makers. The factual background of this case is stated in the decision of the appellate court: Appellants are the registered owners of a parcel of land located in Sampaloc, Manila, and covered by T.C.T. 35161 of the Register of Deeds of Manila. On October 7, 1954, this property was mortgaged by the appellants to the Philippine National Bank, hereinafter called PNB, to guarantee a loan of P1,000.00 extended to one Domingo Prudencio. Sometime in 1955, the Concepcion & Tamayo Construction Company, hereinafter called Company, had a pending contract with the Bureau of Public Works, hereinafter called the Bureau, for the construction of the municipal building in Puerto Princess, Palawan, in the amount of P36,800.00 and, as said Company needed funds for said construction, Jose Toribio, appellants' relative, and attorney-in-fact of the Company, approached the appellants asking them to mortgage their property to secure the loan of P10,000.00 which the Company was negotiating with the PNB. After some persuasion appellants signed on December 23, 1955 the 'Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage', mortgaging their said property to the PNB to guaranty the loan of P10,000.00 extended to the Company. The terms and conditions of the original mortgage for Pl,000.00 were made integral part of the new mortgage for P10,000.00 and both documents were registered with the Register of Deeds of Manila. The promissory note covering the loan of P10,000.00 dated December 29, 1955, maturing on April 27, 1956, was signed by Jose Toribio, as attorney-in-fact of the Company, and by the appellants. Appellants also signed the portion of the promissory note indicating that they are requesting the PNB to issue the Check covering the loan to the Company. On the same date (December 23, 1955) that the 'Amendment of Real Estate' was executed, Jose Toribio, in the same capacity as attorney-in- fact of the Company, executed also the 'Deed of Assignment' assigning all payments to be made by the Bureau to the Company on account of the contract for the construction of the Puerto Princesa building in favor of the PNB. This assignment of credit to the contrary notwithstanding, the Bureau; with approval, of the PNB, conditioned, however that they should be for labor and materials, made three payments to the Company on account of the contract price totalling P11,234.40. The Bureau's last request for P5,000.00 on June 20, 1956, however, was denied by the PNB for the reason that since the loan was already overdue as of April 28, 1956, the remaining balance of the contract price should be applied to the loan. The Company abandoned the work, as a consequence of which on June 30, 1956, the Bureau rescinded the construction contract and assumed the work of completing the building. On November 14, 1958, appellants wrote the PNB contending that since the PNB authorized payments to the Company instead of on account of the loan guaranteed by the mortgage there was a change in the conditions of the contract without the knowledge of appellants, which entitled the latter to a cancellation of their mortgage contract. Failing in their bid to have the real estate mortgage cancelled, appellants filed on June 27, 1959 this action against the PNB, the Company, the latter's attorney-in-fact Jose Toribio, and the District Engineer of Puerto Princesa, Palawan, seeking the cancellation of their real estate mortgage. The complaint was amended to exclude the Company as defendant, it having been shown that its life as a partnership had already expired and, in lieu thereof, Ramon Concepcion and Manuel M. Tamayo, partners of the defunct Company, were impleaded in their private capacity as defendants. After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment, denying the prayer in the complaint that the petitioners be absolved from their obligation under the mortgage contract and that the said mortgage be released or cancelled. The petitioners were ordered to pay jointly and severally with their co-makers Ramon C. Concepcion and Manuel M. Tamayo the sum of P11,900.19 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint on June 27, 1959 until fully paid and Pl,000.00 attorney's fees. The decision also provided that if the judgment was not satisfied within 90 days from its receipt, the mortgaged properties together with all the improvements thereon belonging to the petitioners would be sold at public auction and applied to the judgment debt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in toto stating that, as accommodation makers, the petitioners' liability is that of solidary co-makers and that since "the amounts released to the construction company were used therein and, therefore, were spent for the successful accomplishment of the work constructed for, the authorization made by the Philippine National Bank of partial payments to the construction company which was also one of the solidary debtors cannot constitute a valid defense on the part of the other solidary debtors. Moreover, those who rendered services and furnished materials in the construction are preferred creditors and have a lien on the price of the contract." The appellate court further held that PNB had no obligation whatsoever to notify the petitioners of its authorizing the three payments in the total amount of Pll,234.00 in favor of the Company because aside from the fact that the petitioners were not parties to the deed of assignment, there was no stipulation in said deed making it obligatory on the part of the PNB to notify the petitioners everytime it authorizes payment to the Company. It ruled that the petitioners cannot ask to be released from the real estate mortgage. In this petition, the petitioners raise the following issues which they present in the form of errors: I. First Assignment of Error. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT HEREIN PETITIONERS WERE SOLIDARY CO-DEBTORS INSTEAD OF SURETIES: II. Second Assignment of Error. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE NOT RELEASED FROM THEIR OBLIGATION TO THE RESPONDENT PNB, WHEN THE PNB, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF PETITIONERS, CHANGED THE TENOR AND CONDITION OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR; CONCEPCION & TAMAYO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; AND RELEASED TO SUCH PRINCIPAL DEBTOR PAYMENTS FROM THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC WORKS WHICH WERE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO WIPE OUT THE INDEBTEDNESS TO THE PNB. The petitioners contend that as accommodation makers, the nature of their liability is only that of mere sureties instead of solidary co-debtors such that "a material alteration in the principal contract, effected by the creditor without the knowledge and consent of the sureties, completely discharges the sureties from all liability on the contract of suretyship. " They state that when respondent PNB did not apply the initial and subsequent payments to the petitioners' debt as provided for in the deed of assignment, they were released from their obligation as sureties and, therefore, the real estate mortgage executed by them should have been cancelled. Section 29 of the Negotiable Instrument Law provides: Liability of accommodation party. An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party. In the case of Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Aruego (102 SCRA 530, 539), we held that "... in lending his name to the accommodated party, the accommodation party is in effect a surety. ... . " However, unlike in a contract of suretyship, the liability of the accommodation party remains not only primary but also unconditional to a holder for value such that even if the accommodated party receives an extension of the period for payment without the consent of the accommodation party, the latter is still liable for the whole obligation and such extension does not release him because as far as a holder for value is concerned, he is a solidary co- debtor. Expounding on the nature of the liability of an accommodation petition party under the aforequoted section, we ruled in Ang Tiong v. Ting (22 SCRA 713, 716): 3. That the appellant, again assuming him to be an accommodation indorser, may obtain security from the maker to protect himself against the danger of insolvency of the latter, cannot in any manner affect his liability to the appellee, as the said remedy is a matter of concern exclusively between accommodation indorser and accommodated party. So that the appellant stands only as a surety in relation to the maker, granting this to be true for the sake of argument, is immaterial to the claim of the appellee, and does not a whit diminish nor defeat the rights of the latter who is a holder for value. The liability of the appellant remains primary and unconditional. To sanction the appellant's theory is to give unwarranted legal recognition to the patent absurdity of a situation where an indorser, when sued on an instrument by a holder in due course and for value, can escape liability on his indorsement by the convenient expedient of interposing the defense that he is a mere accommodation indorser. There is, therefore, no question that as accommodation makers, petitioners would be primarily and unconditionally liable on the promissory note to a holder for value, regardless of whether they stand as sureties or solidary co-debtors since such distinction would be entirely immaterial and inconsequential as far as a holder for value is concerned. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim to have been released from their obligation simply because the time of payment of such obligation was temporarily deferred by PNB without their knowledge and consent. There has to be another basis for their claim of having been freed from their obligation. The question which should be resolved in this instant petition, therefore, is whether or not PNB can be considered a holder for value under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law such that the petitioners must be necessarily barred from setting up the defense of want of consideration or some other personal defenses which may be set up against a party who is not a holder in due course. A holder for value under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is one who must meet all the requirements of a holder in due course under Section 52 of the same law except notice of want of consideration. (Agbayani, Commercial Laws of the Philippines, 1964, p. 208). If he does not qualify as a holder in due course then he holds the instrument subject to the same defenses as if it were non-negotiable (Section 58, Negotiable Instruments Law). In the case at bar, can PNB, the payee of the promissory note be considered a holder in due course? Petitioners contend that the payee PNB is an immediate party and, therefore, is not a holder in due course and stands on no better footing than a mere assignee. In those cases where a payee was considered a holder in due course, such payee either acquired the note from another holder or has not directly dealt with the maker thereof. As was held in the case of Bank of Commerce and Savings v. Randell (186 NorthWestern Reporter 71): We conclude, therefore, that a payee who receives a negotiable promissory note, in good faith, for value, before maturity, and without any notice of any infirmity, from a holder, not the maker. to whom it was negotiated as a completed instrument, is a holder in due course within the purview of a Negotiable Instruments law, so as to preclude the defense of fraud and failure of consideration between the maker and the holder to whom the instrument, was delivered. Similarly, in the case of Stone v. Goldberg & Lewis (60 Southern Reporter 748) on rehearing and quoting Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, it was held: It is a general principle of the law merchant that, as between the immediate parties to a negotiable instrument-the parties between whom there is a privity-the consideration may be inquired into; and as to them the only superiority of a bill or note over other unsealed evidence of debt is that it prima facie imports a consideration. Although as a general rule, a payee may be considered a holder in due course we think that such a rule cannot apply with respect to the respondent PNB. Not only was PNB an immediate party or in privy to the promissory note, that is, it had dealt directly with the petitioners knowing fully well that the latter only signed as accommodation makers but more important, it was the Deed of Assignment executed by the Construction Company in favor of PNB which principally moved the petitioners to sign the promissory note also in favor of PNB. Petitioners were made to believe and on that belief entered into the agreement that no other conditions would alter the terms thereof and yet, PNB altered the same. The Deed of Assignment specifically provided that Jose F. Toribio, on behalf of the Company, "have assigned, transferred and conveyed and by these presents, do assign, transfer and convey unto the said Philippine National Bank, its successors and assigns all payments to be received from the Bureau of Public Works on account of contract for the construction of the Puerto Princesa Municipal Building in Palawan, involving the total amount of P 36,000.00" and that "This assignment shall be irrevocable and subject to the terms and conditions of the promissory note and or any other kind of documents which the Philippine National Bank have required or may require the assignor to execute to evidence the above-mentioned obligation." Under the terms of the above Deed, it is clear that there are no further conditions which could possibly alter the agreement without the consent of the petitioners such as the grant of greater priority to obligations other than the payment of the loan due to the PNB and part of which loan was guaranteed by the petitioners in the amount of P10,000.00. This, notwithstanding, PNB approved the Bureau's release of three payments directly to the Company instead of paying the same to the Bank. This approval was in violation of the Deed of Assignment and without any notice to the petitioners who stood to lose their property once the promissory note falls due without the same having been paid because the PNB, in effect, waived payments of the first three releases. From the foregoing circumstances, PNB can not be regarded as having acted in good faith which is also one of the requisites of a holder in due course under Section 52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. The PNB knew that the promissory note which it took from the accommodation makers was signed by the latter because of full reliance on the Deed of Assignment, which, PNB had no intention to comply with strictly. Worse, the third payment to the Company in the amount of P4,293.60 was approved by PNB although the promissory note was almost a month overdue, an act which is clearly detrimental to the petitioners.We, therefore, hold that respondent PNB is not a holder in due course. Thus, the petitioners can validly set up their personal defense of release from the real estate mortgage against PNB. The latter, in authorizing the third payment to the Company after the promissory note became due, in effect, extended the term of the payment of the note without the consent of the accommodation makers who stand as sureties to the accommodated party and to all other parties who are not holders in due course or who do not derive their right from the same, including PNB. It may be argued that the Prudencios could have mortgaged their property even without the promissory note. The records show, however, that they would not have mortgaged the lot were it not for the sake of the Company whose attorney-in-fact was their relative. The spouses did not need the money for themselves. The attorney-in-fact tried twice to convince the Prudencios to mortgage their property in order to secure a loan in favor of the Company but the Prudencios refused. It was only when the deed of assignment was shown to the spouses that they consented to the mortgage and signed the promissory note in the Bank's favor. Article 2085 of the Civil Code enumerates the requisites of a valid mortgage contract. Petitioners do not dispute the validity of the mortgage. They only want to have it cancelled because the Bank violated the deed of assignment and extended the period of time of payment of the promissory note without the petitioners' consent and to the latter's detriment. The mortgage cannot be separated from the promissory note for it is the latter which is the basis of determining whether the mortgage should be foreclosed or cancelled. Without the promissory note which determines the amount of indebtedness there would have been no basis for the mortgage. True, if the Bank had not been the assignee, then the petition petitioners would be obliged to pay the Bank as their creditor on the promissory note, irrespective of whether or not the deed of assignment had been violated. However, the assignee and the creditor in this case are one and the samethe Bank itself. When the Bank violated the deed of assignment, it prejudiced itself because its very violation was the reason why it was not paid on time in its capacity as creditor in the promissory note. It would be unfair to make the petitioners now answer for the debt or to foreclose on their property. Neither can PNB justify its acts on the ground that the Bureau of Public Works approved the deed of assignment with the condition that the wages of laborers and materials needed in the construction work must take precedence over the payment of the promissory note. In the first place, PNB did not need the approval of the Bureau. But even if it did, it should have informed the petitioners about the amendment of the deed of assignment. Secondly, the wages and materials have already been paid. That issue is academic. What is in dispute is who should bear the loss in this case. As between the petitioners and the Bank, the law and the equities of the case favor the petitioners, And thirdly, the wages and materials constitute a lien only on the constructed building but do not enjoy preference over the loan unless there is a liquidation proceeding such as in insolvency or settlement of estate. (See Philippine Savings Bank v. Lantin, 124 SCRA 476). There were remedies available at the time if the laborers and the creditors had not been paid. The fact is, they have been paid. Hence, when the PNB accepted the condition imposed by the Bureau without the knowledge or consent of the petitioners, it amended the deed of assignment which, as stated earlier, was the principal reason why the petitioners consented to become accommodation makers. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered absolving the petitioners from liability on the promissory note and under the mortgage contract. The Philippine National Bank is ordered to release the real estate mortgage constituted on the property of the petitioners and to pay the amount of THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00) as attorney's fees. SO ORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Paras, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law FoundationG.R. No. 72593 April 30, 1987CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., HENRY WEE, and RODOLFO T. VERGARA, petitioners, vs.IFC LEASING AND ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, respondent. Carpio, Villaraza & Cruz Law Offices for petitioners. Europa, Dacanay & Tolentino for respondent. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which assails on questions of law a decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. CV No. 68609 dated July 17, 1985, as well as its resolution dated October 17, 1985, denying the motion for reconsideration. The antecedent facts culled from the petition are as follows: The petitioner is a corporation engaged in the logging business. It had for its program of logging activities for the year 1978 the opening of additional roads, and simultaneous logging operations along the route of said roads, in its logging concession area at Baganga, Manay, and Caraga, Davao Oriental. For this purpose, it needed two (2) additional units of tractors. Cognizant of petitioner-corporation's need and purpose, Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila, through its sister company and marketing arm, Industrial Products Marketing (the "seller-assignor"), a corporation dealing in tractors and other heavy equipment business, offered to sell to petitioner-corporation two (2) "Used" Allis Crawler Tractors, one (1) an HDD-21-B and the other an HDD-16-B. In order to ascertain the extent of work to which the tractors were to be exposed, (t.s.n., May 28, 1980, p. 44) and to determine the capability of the "Used" tractors being offered, petitioner-corporation requested the seller-assignor to inspect the job site. After conducting said inspection, the seller-assignor assured petitioner-corporation that the "Used" Allis Crawler Tractors which were being offered were fit for the job, and gave the corresponding warranty of ninety (90) days performance of the machines and availability of parts. (t.s.n., May 28, 1980, pp. 59-66). With said assurance and warranty, and relying on the seller-assignor's skill and judgment, petitioner-corporation through petitioners Wee and Vergara, president and vice- president, respectively, agreed to purchase on installment said two (2) units of "Used" Allis Crawler Tractors. It also paid the down payment of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P210,000.00). On April 5, 1978, the seller-assignor issued the sales invoice for the two 2) units of tractors (Exh. "3-A"). At the same time, the deed of sale with chattel mortgage with promissory note was executed (Exh. "2"). Simultaneously with the execution of the deed of sale with chattel mortgage with promissory note, the seller-assignor, by means of a deed of assignment (E exh. " 1 "), assigned its rights and interest in the chattel mortgage in favor of the respondent. Immediately thereafter, the seller-assignor delivered said two (2) units of "Used" tractors to the petitioner-corporation's job site and as agreed, the seller-assignor stationed its own mechanics to supervise the operations of the machines. Barely fourteen (14) days had elapsed after their delivery when one of the tractors broke down and after another nine (9) days, the other tractor likewise broke down (t.s.n., May 28, 1980, pp. 68-69). On April 25, 1978, petitioner Rodolfo T. Vergara formally advised the seller-assignor of the fact that the tractors broke down and requested for the seller-assignor's usual prompt attention under the warranty (E exh. " 5 "). In response to the formal advice by petitioner Rodolfo T. Vergara, Exhibit "5," the seller-assignor sent to the job site its mechanics to conduct the necessary repairs (Exhs. "6," "6-A," "6-B," 16 C," "16-C-1," "6-D," and "6-E"), but the tractors did not come out to be what they should be after the repairs were undertaken because the units were no longer serviceable (t. s. n., May 28, 1980, p. 78). Because of the breaking down of the tractors, the road building and simultaneous logging operations of petitioner-corporation were delayed and petitioner Vergara advised the seller-assignor that the payments of the installments as listed in the promissory note would likewise be delayed until the seller-assignor completely fulfills its obligation under its warranty (t.s.n, May 28, 1980, p. 79). Since the tractors were no longer serviceable, on April 7, 1979, petitioner Wee asked the seller-assignor to pull out the units and have them reconditioned, and thereafter to offer them for sale. The proceeds were to be given to the respondent and the excess, if any, to be divided between the seller-assignor and petitioner-corporation which offered to bear one-half (1/2) of the reconditioning cost (E exh. " 7 ").No response to this letter, Exhibit "7," was received by the petitioner-corporation and despite several follow-up calls, the seller-assignor did nothing with regard to the request, until the complaint in this case was filed by the respondent against the petitioners, the corporation, Wee, and Vergara. The complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioners for the recovery of the principal sum of One Million Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Nine Pesos & 71/100 (P1,093,789.71), accrued interest of One Hundred Fifty One Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen Pesos & 86/100 (P151,618.86) as of August 15, 1979, accruing interest thereafter at the rate of twelve (12%) percent per annum, attorney's fees of Two Hundred Forty Nine Thousand Eighty One Pesos & 71/100 (P249,081.7 1) and costs of suit. The petitioners filed their amended answer praying for the dismissal of the complaint and asking the trial court to order the respondent to pay the petitioners damages in an amount at the sound discretion of the court, Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as and for attorney's fees, and Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for expenses of litigation. The petitioners likewise prayed for such other and further relief as would be just under the premises. In a decision dated April 20, 1981, the trial court rendered the following judgment: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally in their official and personal capacities the principal sum of ONE MILLION NINETY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT PESOS & 71/100 (P1,093,798.71) with accrued interest of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTEEN PESOS & 86/100 (P151,618.,86) as of August 15, 1979 and accruing interest thereafter at the rate of 12% per annum; 2. ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the principal and to pay the costs of the suit. Defendants' counterclaim is disallowed. (pp. 45-46, Rollo) On June 8, 1981, the trial court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court and assigned therein the following errors: I THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE SELLER ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA DID NOT APPROVE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS CLAIM OF WARRANTY. IITHAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE IS A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE AND SUED UNDER SAID NOTE AS HOLDER THEREOF IN DUE COURSE. On July 17, 1985, the Intermediate Appellate Court issued the challenged decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court. The pertinent portions of the decision are as follows: xxx xxx xxxFrom the evidence presented by the parties on the issue of warranty, We are of the considered opinion that aside from the fact that no provision of warranty appears or is provided in the Deed of Sale of the tractors and even admitting that in a contract of sale unless a contrary intention appears, there is an implied warranty, the defense of breach of warranty, if there is any, as in this case, does not lie in favor of the appellants and against the plaintiff-appellee who is the assignee of the promissory note and a holder of the same in due course. Warranty lies in this case only between Industrial Products Marketing and Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. The plaintiff-appellant herein upon application by appellant corporation granted financing for the purchase of the questioned units of Fiat-Allis Crawler,Tractors. xxx xxx xxxHolding that breach of warranty if any, is not a defense available to appellants either to withdraw from the contract and/or demand a proportionate reduction of the price with damages in either case (Art. 1567, New Civil Code). We now come to the issue as to whether the plaintiff-appellee is a holder in due course of the promissory note. To begin with, it is beyond arguments that the plaintiff-appellee is a financing corporation engaged in financing and receivable discounting extending credit facilities to consumers and industrial, commercial or agricultural enterprises by discounting or factoring commercial papers or accounts receivable duly authorized pursuant to R.A. 5980 otherwise known as the Financing Act. A study of the questioned promissory note reveals that it is a negotiable instrument which was discounted or sold to the IFC Leasing and Acceptance Corporation for P800,000.00 (Exh. "A") considering the following. it is in writing and signed by the maker; it contains an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum of money payable at a fixed or determinable future time; it is payable to order (Sec. 1, NIL); the promissory note was negotiated when it was transferred and delivered by IPM to the appellee and duly endorsed to the latter (Sec. 30, NIL); it was taken in the conditions that the note was complete and regular upon its face before the same was overdue and without notice, that it had been previously dishonored and that the note is in good faith and for value without notice of any infirmity or defect in the title of IPM (Sec. 52, NIL); that IFC Leasing and Acceptance Corporation held the instrument free from any defect of title of prior parties and free from defenses available to prior parties among themselves and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof against all parties liable thereon (Sec. 57, NIL); the appellants engaged that they would pay the note according to its tenor, and admit the existence of the payee IPM and its capacity to endorse (Sec. 60, NIL). In view of the essential elements found in the questioned promissory note, We opine that the same is legally and conclusively enforceable against the defendants-appellants. WHEREFORE, finding the decision appealed from according to law and evidence, We find the appeal without merit and thus affirm the decision in toto. With costs against the appellants. (pp. 50-55, Rollo) The petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision of July 17, 1985 was denied by the Intermediate Appellate Court in its resolution dated October 17, 1985, a copy of which was received by the petitioners on October 21, 1985. Hence, this petition was filed on the following grounds: I. ON ITS FACE, THE PROMISSORY NOTE IS CLEARLY NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AS DEFINED UNDER THE LAW SINCE IT IS NEITHER PAYABLE TO ORDER NOR TO BEARER. IITHE RESPONDENT IS NOT A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE: AT BEST, IT IS A MERE ASSIGNEE OF THE SUBJECT PROMISSORY NOTE. III.SINCE THE INSTANT CASE INVOLVES A NON-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND THE TRANSFER OF RIGHTS WAS THROUGH A MERE ASSIGNMENT, THE PETITIONERS MAY RAISE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ALL DEFENSES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO IT AS AGAINST THE SELLER- ASSIGNOR, INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS MARKETING. IV. THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE BECAUSE: A) THE SELLER-ASSIGNOR IS GUILTY OF BREACH OF WARRANTY UNDER THE LAW; B) IF AT ALL, THE RESPONDENT MAY RECOVER ONLY FROM THE SELLER-ASSIGNOR OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE. V. THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE CHATTEL MORTGAGE BY THE SELLER- ASSIGNOR IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION FROM BEING A SALE ON INSTALLMENTS TO A PURE LOAN. VI. THE PROMISSORY NOTE CANNOT BE ADMITTED OR USED IN EVIDENCE IN ANY COURT BECAUSE THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTARY STAMPS HAVE NOT BEEN AFFIXED THEREON OR CANCELLED. The petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered setting aside the decision dated July 17, 1985, as well as the resolution dated October 17, 1985 and dismissing the complaint but granting petitioners' counterclaims before the court of origin. On the other hand, the respondent corporation in its comment to the petition filed on February 20, 1986, contended that the petition was filed out of time; that the promissory note is a negotiable instrument and respondent a holder in due course; that respondent is not liable for any breach of warranty; and finally, that the promissory note is admissible in evidence. The core issue herein is whether or not the promissory note in question is a negotiable instrument so as to bar completely all the available defenses of the petitioner against the respondent-assignee. Preliminarily, it must be established at the outset that we consider the instant petition to have been filed on time because the petitioners' motion for reconsideration actually raised new issues. It cannot, therefore, be considered pro- formal. The petition is impressed with merit. First, there is no question that the seller-assignor breached its express 90-day warranty because the findings of the trial court, adopted by the respondent appellate court, that "14 days after delivery, the first tractor broke down and 9 days, thereafter, the second tractor became inoperable" are sustained by the records. The petitioner was clearly a victim of a warranty not honored by the maker. The Civil Code provides that: ART. 1561. The vendor shall be responsible for warranty against the hidden defects which the thing sold may have, should they render it unfit for the use for which it is intended, or should they diminish its fitness for such use to such an extent that, had the vendee been aware thereof, he would not have acquired it or would have given a lower price for it; but said vendor shall not be answerable for patent defects or those which may be visible, or for those which are not visible if the vendee is an expert who, by reason of his trade or profession, should have known them.ART. 1562. In a sale of goods, there is an implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness of the goods, as follows:(1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are acquired, and it appears that the buyer relies on the sellers skill or judge judgment (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose;xxx xxx xxxART. 1564. An implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade.xxx xxx xxxART. 1566. The vendor is responsible to the vendee for any hidden faults or defects in the thing sold even though he was not aware thereof.This provision shall not apply if the contrary has been stipulated, and the vendor was not aware of the hidden faults or defects in the thing sold. (Emphasis supplied). It is patent then, that the seller-assignor is liable for its breach of warranty against the petitioner. This liability as a general rule, extends to the corporation to whom it assigned its rights and interests unless the assignee is a holder in due course of the promissory note in question, assuming the note is negotiable, in which case the latter's rights are based on the negotiable instrument and assuming further that the petitioner's defenses may not prevail against it. Secondly, it likewise cannot be denied that as soon as the tractors broke down, the petitioner-corporation notified the seller-assignor's sister company, AG & P, about the breakdown based on the seller-assignor's express 90-day warranty, with which the latter complied by sending its mechanics. However, due to the seller-assignor's delay and its failure to comply with its warranty, the tractors became totally unserviceable and useless for the purpose for which they were purchased. Thirdly, the petitioner-corporation, thereafter, unilaterally rescinded its contract with the seller-assignor. Articles 1191 and 1567 of the Civil Code provide that: ART. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible. xxx xxx xxxART. 1567. In the cases of articles 1561, 1562, 1564, 1565 and 1566, the vendee may elect between withdrawing from the contract and demanding a proportionate reduction of the price, with damages in either case. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner, having unilaterally and extrajudicially rescinded its contract with the seller-assignor, necessarily can no longer sue the seller-assignor except by way of counterclaim if the seller-assignor sues it because of the rescission. In the case of the University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles (35 SCRA 102) we held: In other words, the party who deems the contract violated may consider it resolved or rescinded, and act accordingly, without previous court action, but it proceeds at its own risk. For it is only the final judgment of the corresponding court that will conclusively and finally settle whether the action taken was or was not correct in law. But the law definitely does not require that the contracting party who believes itself injured must first file suit and wait for adjudgement before taking extrajudicial steps to protect its interest. Otherwise, the party injured by the other's breach will have to passively sit and watch its damages accumulate during the pendency of the suit until the final judgment of rescission is rendered when the law itself requires that he should exercise due diligence to minimize its own damages (Civil Code, Article 2203). (Emphasis supplied) Going back to the core issue, we rule that the promissory note in question is not a negotiable instrument. The pertinent portion of the note is as follows: FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I/we jointly and severally promise to pay to the INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS MARKETING, the sum of ONE MILLION NINETY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE PESOS & 71/100 only (P 1,093,789.71), Philippine Currency, the said principal sum, to be payable in 24 monthly installments starting July 15, 1978 and every 15th of the month thereafter until fully paid. ... Considering that paragraph (d), Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law requires that a promissory note "must be payable to order or bearer, " it cannot be denied that the promissory note in question is not a negotiable instrument. The instrument in order to be considered negotiablility-i.e. must contain the so-called 'words of negotiable, must be payable to 'order' or 'bearer'. These words serve as an expression of consent that the instrument may be transferred. This consent is indispensable since a maker assumes greater risk under a negotiable instrument than under a non-negotiable one. ...xxx xxx xxxWhen instrument is payable to order. SEC. 8. WHEN PAYABLE TO ORDER. The instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable to the order of a specified person or to him or his order. . . . xxx xxx xxxThese are the only two ways by which an instrument may be made payable to order. There must always be a specified person named in the instrument. It means that the bill or note is to be paid to the person designated in the instrument or to any person to whom he has indorsed and delivered the same. Without the words "or order" or"to the order of, "the instrument is payable only to the person designated therein and is therefore non-negotiable. Any subsequent purchaser thereof will not enjoy the advantages of being a holder of a negotiable instrument but will merely "step into the shoes" of the person designated in the instrument and will thus be open to all defenses available against the latter." (Campos and Campos, Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law, Third Edition, page 38). (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, considering that the subject promissory note is not a negotiable instrument, it follows that the respondent can never be a holder in due course but remains a mere assignee of the note in question. Thus, the petitioner may raise against the respondent all defenses available to it as against the seller-assignor Industrial Products Marketing. This being so, there was no need for the petitioner to implied the seller-assignor when it was sued by the respondent-assignee because the petitioner's defenses apply to both or either of either of them. Actually, the records show that even the respondent itself admitted to being a mere assignee of the promissory note in question, to wit: ATTY. PALACA: Did we get it right from the counsel that what is being assigned is the Deed of Sale with Chattel Mortgage with the promissory note which is as testified to by the witness was indorsed? (Counsel for Plaintiff nodding his head.) Then we have no further questions on cross, COURT: You confirm his manifestation? You are nodding your head? Do you confirm that? ATTY. ILAGAN: The Deed of Sale cannot be assigned. A deed of sale is a transaction between two persons; what is assigned are rights, the rights of the mortgagee were assigned to the IFC Leasing & Acceptance Corporation. COURT: He puts it in a simple way as one-deed of sale and chattel mortgage were assigned; . . . you want to make a distinction, one is an assignment of mortgage right and the other one is indorsement of the promissory note. What counsel for defendants wants is that you stipulate that it is contained in one single transaction? ATTY. ILAGAN: We stipulate it is one single transaction. (pp. 27-29, TSN., February 13, 1980). Secondly, even conceding for purposes of discussion that the promissory note in question is a negotiable instrument, the respondent cannot be a holder in due course for a more significant reason. The evidence presented in the instant case shows that prior to the sale on installment of the tractors, there was an arrangement between the seller-assignor, Industrial Products Marketing, and the respondent whereby the latter would pay the seller-assignor the entire purchase price and the seller-assignor, in turn, would assign its rights to the respondent which acquired the right to collect the price from the buyer, herein petitioner Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. A mere perusal of the Deed of Sale with Chattel Mortgage with Promissory Note, the Deed of Assignment and the Disclosure of Loan/Credit Transaction shows that said documents evidencing the sale on installment of the tractors were all executed on the same day by and among the buyer, which is herein petitioner Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc.; the seller-assignor which is the Industrial Products Marketing; and the assignee-financing company, which is the respondent. Therefore, the respondent had actual knowledge of the fact that the seller-assignor's right to collect the purchase price was not unconditional, and that it was subject to the condition that the tractors -sold were not defective. The respondent knew that when the tractors turned out to be defective, it would be subject to the defense of failure of consideration and cannot recover the purchase price from the petitioners. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the promissory note is negotiable, the respondent, which took the same with actual knowledge of the foregoing facts so that its action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith, is not a holder in due course. As such, the respondent is subject to all defenses which the petitioners may raise against the seller-assignor. Any other interpretation would be most inequitous to the unfortunate buyer who is not only saddled with two useless tractors but must also face a lawsuit from the assignee for the entire purchase price and all its incidents without being able to raise valid defenses available as against the assignor.Lastly, the respondent failed to present any evidence to prove that it had no knowledge of any fact, which would justify its act of taking the promissory note as not amounting to bad faith. Sections 52 and 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provide that: negotiating it. xxx xxx xxxSEC. 52. WHAT CONSTITUTES A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx(c) That he took it in good faith and for value(d) That the time it was negotiated by him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument of deffect in the title of the person negotiating itxxx xxx xxxSEC. 56. WHAT CONSTITUTES NOTICE OF DEFFECT. To constitute notice of an infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same, the person to whom it is negotiated must have had actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounts to bad faith. (Emphasis supplied) We subscribe to the view of Campos and Campos that a financing company is not a holder in good faith as to the buyer, to wit: In installment sales, the buyer usually issues a note payable to the seller to cover the purchase price. Many times, in pursuance of a previous arrangement with the seller, a finance company pays the full price and the note is indorsed to it, subrogating it to the right to collect the price from the buyer, with interest. With the increasing frequency of installment buying in this country, it is most probable that the tendency of the courts in the United States to protect the buyer against the finance company will , the finance company will be subject to the defense of failure of consideration and cannot recover the purchase price from the buyer. As against the argument that such a rule would seriously affect "a certain mode of transacting business adopted throughout the State," a court in one case stated: It may be that our holding here will require some changes in business methods and will impose a greater burden on the finance companies. We think the buyer-Mr. & Mrs. General Public-should have some protection somewhere along the line. We believe the finance company is better able to bear the risk of the dealer's insolvency than the buyer and in a far better position to protect his interests against unscrupulous and insolvent dealers. . . . If this opinion imposes great burdens on finance companies it is a potent argument in favor of a rule which win afford public protection to the general buying public against unscrupulous dealers in personal property. . . . (Mutual Finance Co. v. Martin, 63 So. 2d 649, 44 ALR 2d 1 [1953]) (Campos and Campos, Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law, Third Edition, p. 128). In the case of Commercial Credit Corporation v. Orange Country Machine Works (34 Cal. 2d 766) involving similar facts, it was held that in a very real sense, the finance company was a moving force in the transaction from its very inception and acted as a party to it. When a finance company actively participates in a transaction of this type from its inception, it cannot be regarded as a holder in due course of the note given in the transaction. In like manner, therefore, even assuming that the subject promissory note is negotiable, the respondent, a financing company which actively participated in the sale on installment of the subject two Allis Crawler tractors, cannot be regarded as a holder in due course of said note. It follows that the respondent's rights under the promissory note involved in this case are subject to all defenses that the petitioners have against the seller-assignor, Industrial Products Marketing. For Section 58 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides that "in the hands of any holder other than a holder in due course, a negotiable instrument is subject to the same defenses as if it were non-negotiable. ... " Prescinding from the foregoing and setting aside other peripheral issues, we find that both the trial and respondent appellate court erred in holding the promissory note in question to be negotiable. Such a ruling does not only violate the law and applicable jurisprudence, but would result in unjust enrichment on the part of both the assigner- assignor and respondent assignee at the expense of the petitioner-corporation which rightfully rescinded an inequitable contract. We note, however, that since the seller-assignor has not been impleaded herein, there is no obstacle for the respondent to file a civil Suit and litigate its claims against the seller- assignor in the rather unlikely possibility that it so desires, WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the respondent appellate court dated July 17, 1985, as well as its resolution dated October 17, 1986, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The complaint against the petitioner before the trial court is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Fernan, Paras, Padilla, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur. G.R. No. 76788 January 22, 1990JUANITA SALAS, petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FIRST FINANCE & LEASING CORPORATION, respondents.Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. for petitioner.Labaguis, Loyola, Angara & Associates for private respondent.FERNAN, C.J.:Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 00757 entitled "Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation v. Salas", which modified the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga in Civil Case No. 5915, a collection suit between the same parties.Records disclose that on February 6, 1980, Juanita Salas (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) bought a motor vehicle from the Violago Motor Sales Corporation (VMS for brevity) for P58,138.20 as evidenced by a promissory note. This note was subsequently endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as private respondent) which financed the purchase.Petitioner defaulted in her installments beginning May 21, 1980 allegedly due to a discrepancy in the engine and chassis numbers of the vehicle delivered to her and those indicated in the sales invoice, certificate of registration and deed of chattel mortgage, which fact she discovered when the vehicle figured in an accident on 9 May 1980.This failure to pay prompted private respondent to initiate Civil Case No. 5915 for a sum of money against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga.In its decision dated September 10, 1982, the trial court held, thus:WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P28,414.40 with interest thereon at the rate of 14% from October 2, 1980 until the said sum is fully paid; and the further amount of P1,000.00 as attorney's fees.The counterclaim of defendant is dismissed.With costs against defendant. 1Both petitioner and private respondent appealed the aforesaid decision to the Court of Appeals.Imputing fraud, bad faith and misrepresentation against VMS for having delivered a different vehicle to petitioner, the latter prayed for a reversal of the trial court's decision so that she may be absolved from the obligation under the contract.On October 27, 1986, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed decision, the pertinent portion of which is quoted hereunder:The allegations, statements, or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contradictory of, or inconsistent with his pleadings (Cunanan vs. Amparo, 80 Phil. 227). Admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings, do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake (Sec. 2, Rule 129, Revised Rules of Court; Sta. Ana vs. Maliwat, L-23023, Aug. 31, 1968, 24 SCRA 1018).When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denied them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts (Sec. 8, Rule 8, Revised Rules of Court; Hibbered vs. Rohde and McMillian, 32 Phil. 476).A perusal of the evidence shows that the amount of P58,138.20 stated in the promissory note is the amount assumed by the plaintiff in financing the purchase of defendant's motor vehicle from the Violago Motor Sales Corp., the monthly amortization of winch is Pl,614.95 for 36 months. Considering that the defendant was able to pay twice (as admitted by the plaintiff, defendant's account became delinquent only beginning May, 1980) or in the total sum of P3,229.90, she is therefore liable to pay the remaining balance of P54,908.30 at l4% per annum from October 2, 1980 until full payment.WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby modified ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P54,908.30 at 14% per annum from October 2, 1980 until full payment. The decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects. With costs to defendant. 2Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, the present recourse.In the petition before us, petitioner assigns twelve (12) errors which focus on the alleged fraud, bad faith and misrepresentation of Violago Motor Sales Corporation in the conduct of its business and which fraud, bad faith and misrepresentation supposedly released petitioner from any liability to private respondent who should instead proceed against VMS. 3Petitioner argues that in the light of the provision of the law on sales by description 4 which she alleges is applicable here, no contract ever existed between her and VMS and therefore none had been assigned in favor of private respondent.She contends that it is not necessary, as opined by the appellate court, to implead VMS as a party to the case before it can be made to answer for damages because VMS was earlier sued by her for "breach of contract with damages" before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch LXXII, docketed as Civil Case No. 2916-0. She cites as authority the decision therein where the court originally ordered petitioner to pay the remaining balance of the motor vehicle installments in the amount of P31,644.30 representing the difference between the agreed consideration of P49,000.00 as shown in the sales invoice and petitioner's initial downpayment of P17,855.70 allegedly evidenced by a receipt. Said decision was however reversed later on, with the same court ordering defendant VMS instead to return to petitioner the sum of P17,855.70. Parenthetically, said decision is still pending consideration by the First Civil Case Division of the Court of Appeals, upon an appeal by VMS, docketed as AC-G.R. No. 02922. 5Private respondent in its comment, prays for the dismissal of the petition and counters that the issues raised and the allegations adduced therein are a mere rehash of those presented and already passed upon in the court below, and that the judgment in the "breach of contract" suit cannot be invoked as an authority as the same is still pending determination in the appellate court.We see no cogent reason to disturb the challenged decision.The pivotal issue in this case is whether the promissory note in question is a negotiable instrument which will bar completely all the available defenses of the petitioner against private respondent.Petitioner's liability on the promissory note, the due execution and genuineness of which she never denied under oath is, under the foregoing factual milieu, as inevitable as it is clearly established.The records reveal that involved herein is not a simple case of assignment of credit as petitioner would have it appear, where the assignee merely steps into the shoes of, is open to all defenses available against and can enforce payment only to the same extent as, the assignor-vendor.Recently, in the case of Consolidated Plywood Industries Inc. v. IFC Leasing and Acceptance Corp., 6 this Court had the occasion to clearly distinguish between a negotiable and a non-negotiable instrument.Among others, the instrument in order to be considered negotiable must contain the so-called "words of negotiability i.e., must be payable to "order" or "bearer"". Under Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, there are only two ways by which an instrument may be made payable to order. There must always be a specified person named in the instrument and the bill or note is to be paid to the person designated in the instrument or to any person to whom he has indorsed and delivered the same. Without the words "or order or "to the order of", the instrument is payable only to the person designated therein and is therefore non-negotiable. Any subsequent purchaser thereof will not enjoy the advantages of being a holder of a negotiable instrument, but will merely "step into the shoes" of the person designated in the instrument and will thus be open to all defenses available against the latter. Such being the situation in the above-cited case, it was held that therein private respondent is not a holder in due course but a mere assignee against whom all defenses available to the assignor may be raised. 7In the case at bar, however, the situation is different. Indubitably, the basis of private respondent's claim against petitioner is a promissory note which bears all the earmarks of negotiability.The pertinent portion of the note reads:PROMISSORY NOTE(MONTHLY)P58,138.20 San Fernando, Pampanga, PhilippinesFeb. 11, 1980 For value received, I/We jointly and severally, promise to pay Violago Motor Sales Corporation or order, at its office in San Fernando, Pampanga, the sum of FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT & 201/100 ONLY (P58,138.20) Philippine currency, which amount includes interest at 14% per annum based on the diminishing balance, the said principal sum, to be payable, without need of notice or demand, in installments of the amounts following and at the dates hereinafter set forth, to wit: P1,614.95 monthly for "36" months due and payable on the 21st day of each month starting March 21, 1980 thru and inclusive of February 21, 1983. P_________ monthly for ______ months due and payable on the ______ day of each month starting _____198__ thru and inclusive of _____, 198________ provided that interest at 14% per annum shall be added on each unpaid installment from maturity hereof until fully paid.xxx xxx xxxMaker; Co-Maker:(SIGNED) JUANITA SALAS _________________Address:____________________ ____________________WITNESSES SIGNED: ILLEGIBLE SIGNED: ILLEGIBLETAN # TAN #PAY TO THE ORDER OFFILINVEST FINANCE AND LEASING CORPORATIONVIOLAGO MOTOR SALES CORPORATIONBY: (SIGNED) GENEVEVA V. BALTAZARCash Manager 8A careful study of the questioned promissory note shows that it is a negotiable instrument, having complied with the requisites under the law as follows: [a] it is in writing and signed by the maker Juanita Salas; [b] it contains an unconditional promise to pay the amount of P58,138.20; [c] it is payable at a fixed or determinable future time which is "P1,614.95 monthly for 36 months due and payable on the 21 st day of each month starting March 21, 1980 thru and inclusive of Feb. 21, 1983;" [d] it is payable to Violago Motor Sales Corporation, or order and as such, [e] the drawee is named or indicated with certainty. 9It was negotiated by indorsement in writing on the instrument itself payable to the Order of Filinvest Finance and Leasing Corporation 10 and it is an indorsement of the entire instrument. 11Under the circumstances, there appears to be no question that Filinvest is a holder in due course, having taken the instrument under the following conditions: [a] it is complete and regular upon its face; [b] it became the holder thereof before it was overdue, and without notice that it had previously been dishonored; [c] it took the same in good faith and for value; and [d] when it was negotiated to Filinvest, the latter had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of VMS Corporation. 12Accordingly, respondent corporation holds the instrument free from any defect of title of prior parties, and free from defenses available to prior parties among themselves, and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof. 13 This being so, petitioner cannot set up against respondent the defense of nullity of the contract of sale between her and VMS.Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is an iota of truth in petitioner's allegation that there was in fact deception made upon her in that the vehicle she purchased was different from that actually delivered to her, this matter cannot be passed upon in the case before us, where the VMS was never impleaded as a party.Whatever issue is raised or claim presented against VMS must be resolved in the "breach of contract" case.Hence, we reach a similar opinion as did respondent court when it held:We can only extend our sympathies to the defendant (herein petitioner) in this unfortunate incident. Indeed, there is nothing We can do as far as the Violago Motor Sales Corporation is concerned since it is not a party in this case. To even discuss the issue as to whether or not the Violago Motor Sales Corporation is liable in the transaction in question would amount, to denial of due process, hence, improper and unconstitutional. She should have impleaded Violago Motor Sales. 14 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. With costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Corts, JJ., concur.Footnotes1 Rollo, p. 21.G.R. No. L-15126 November 30, 1961VICENTE R. DE OCAMPO & CO., plaintiff-appellee, vs.ANITA GATCHALIAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.Vicente Formoso, Jr. for plaintiff-appellee.Reyes and Pangalagan for defendants-appellants.LABRADOR, J.:Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Conrado M. Velasquez, presiding, sentencing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P600, with legal interest from September 10, 1953 until paid, and to pay the costs.The action is for the recovery of the value of a check for P600 payable to the plaintiff and drawn by defendant Anita C. Gatchalian. The complaint sets forth the check and alleges that plaintiff received it in payment of the indebtedness of one Matilde Gonzales; that upon receipt of said check, plaintiff gave Matilde Gonzales P158.25, the difference between the face value of the check and Matilde Gonzales' indebtedness. The defendants admit the execution of the check but they allege in their answer, as affirmative defense, that it was issued subject to a condition, which was not fulfilled, and that plaintiff was guilty of gross negligence in not taking steps to protect itself.At the time of the trial, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts, which reads as follows:Plaintiff and defendants through their respective undersigned attorney's respectfully submit the following Agreed Stipulation of Facts;First. That on or about 8 September 1953, in the evening, defendant Anita C. Gatchalian who was then interested in looking for a car for the use of her husband and the family, was shown and offered a car by Manuel Gonzales who was accompanied by Emil Fajardo, the latter being personally known to defendant Anita C. Gatchalian;Second. That Manuel Gonzales represented to defend Anita C. Gatchalian that he was duly authorized by the owner of the car, Ocampo Clinic, to look for a buyer of said car and to negotiate for and accomplish said sale, but which facts were not known to plaintiff;Third. That defendant Anita C. Gatchalian, finding the price of the car quoted by Manuel Gonzales to her satisfaction, requested Manuel Gonzales to bring the car the day following together with the certificate of registration of the car, so that her husband would be able to see same; that on this request of defendant Anita C. Gatchalian, Manuel Gonzales advised her that the owner of the car will not be willing to give the certificate of registration unless there is a showing that the party interested in the purchase of said car is ready and willing to make such purchase and that for this purpose Manuel Gonzales requested defendant Anita C. Gatchalian to give him (Manuel Gonzales) a check which will be shown to the owner as evidence of buyer's good faith in the intention to purchase the said car, the said check to be for safekeeping only of Manuel Gonzales and to be returned to defendant Anita C. Gatchalian the following day when Manuel Gonzales brings the car and the certificate of registration, but which facts were not known to plaintiff;Fourth. That relying on these representations of Manuel Gonzales and with his assurance that said check will be only for safekeeping and which will be returned to said defendant the following day when the car and its certificate of registration will be brought by Manuel Gonzales to defendants, but which facts were not known to plaintiff, defendant Anita C. Gatchalian drew and issued a check, Exh. "B"; that Manuel Gonzales executed and issued a receipt for said check, Exh. "1";Fifth. That on the failure of Manuel Gonzales to appear the day following and on his failure to bring the car and its certificate of registration and to return the check, Exh. "B", on the following day as previously agreed upon, defendant Anita C. Gatchalian issued a "Stop Payment Order" on the check, Exh. "3", with the drawee bank. Said "Stop Payment Order" was issued without previous notice on plaintiff not being know to defendant, Anita C. Gatchalian and who furthermore had no reason to know check was given to plaintiff;Sixth. That defendants, both or either of them, did not know personally Manuel Gonzales or any member of his family at any time prior to September 1953, but that defendant Hipolito Gatchalian is personally acquainted with V. R. de Ocampo;Seventh. That defendants, both or either of them, had no arrangements or agreement with the Ocampo Clinic at any time prior to, on or after 9 September 1953 for the hospitalization of the wife of Manuel Gonzales and neither or both of said defendants had assumed, expressly or impliedly, with the Ocampo Clinic, the obligation of Manuel Gonzales or his wife for the hospitalization of the latter;Eight. That defendants, both or either of them, had no obligation or liability, directly or indirectly with the Ocampo Clinic before, or on 9 September 1953;Ninth. That Manuel Gonzales having received the check Exh. "B" from defendant Anita C. Gatchalian under the representations and conditions herein above specified, delivered the same to the Ocampo Clinic, in payment of the fees and expenses arising from the hospitalization of his wife;Tenth. That plaintiff for and in consideration of fees and expenses of hospitalization and the release of the wife of Manuel Gonzales from its hospital, accepted said check, applying P441.75 (Exhibit "A") thereof to payment of said fees and expenses and delivering to Manuel Gonzales the amount of P158.25 (as per receipt, Exhibit "D") representing the balance on the amount of the said check, Exh. "B";Eleventh. That the acts of acceptance of the check and application of its proceeds in the manner specified above were made without previous inquiry by plaintiff from defendants:Twelfth. That plaintiff filed or caused to be filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, a complaint for estafa against Manuel Gonzales based on and arising from the acts of said Manuel Gonzales in paying his obligations with plaintiff and receiving the cash balance of the check, Exh. "B" and that said complaint was subsequently dropped;Thirteenth. That the exhibits mentioned in this stipulation and the other exhibits submitted previously, be considered as parts of this stipulation, without necessity of formally offering them in evidence;WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this agreed stipulation of facts be admitted and that the parties hereto be given fifteen days from today within which to submit simultaneously their memorandum to discuss the issues of law arising from the facts, reserving to either party the right to submit reply memorandum, if necessary, within ten days from receipt of their main memoranda. (pp. 21-25, Defendant's Record on Appeal).No other evidence was submitted and upon said stipulation the court rendered the judgment already alluded above.In their appeal defendants-appellants contend that the check is not a negotiable instrument, under the facts and circumstances stated in the stipulation of facts, and that plaintiff is not a holder in due course. In support of the first contention, it is argued that defendant Gatchalian had no intention to transfer her property in the instrument as it was for safekeeping merely and, therefore, there was no delivery required by law (Section 16, Negotiable Instruments Law); that assuming for the sake of argument that delivery was not for safekeeping merely, delivery was conditional and the condition was not fulfilled.In support of the contention that plaintiff-appellee is not a holder in due course, the appellant argues that plaintiff-appellee cannot be a holder in due course because there was no negotiation prior to plaintiff-appellee's acquiring the possession of the check; that a holder in due course presupposes a prior party from whose hands negotiation proceeded, and in the case at bar, plaintiff-appellee is the payee, the maker and the payee being original parties. It is also claimed that the plaintiff-appellee is not a holder in due course because it acquired the check with notice of defect in the title of the holder, Manuel Gonzales, and because under the circumstances stated in the stipulation of facts there were circumstances that brought suspicion about Gonzales' possession and negotiation, which circumstances should have placed the plaintiff-appellee under the duty, to inquire into the title of the holder. The circumstances are as follows:The check is not a personal check of Manuel Gonzales. (Paragraph Ninth, Stipulation of Facts). Plaintiff could have inquired why a person would use the check of another to pay his own debt. Furthermore, plaintiff had the "means of knowledge" inasmuch as defendant Hipolito Gatchalian is personally acquainted with V. R. de Ocampo (Paragraph Sixth, Stipulation of Facts.).The maker Anita C. Gatchalian is a complete stranger to Manuel Gonzales and Dr. V. R. de Ocampo (Paragraph Sixth, Stipulation of Facts).The maker is not in any manner obligated to Ocampo Clinic nor to Manuel Gonzales. (Par. 7, Stipulation of Facts.)The check could not have been intended to pay the hospital fees which amounted only to P441.75. The check is in the amount of P600.00, which is in excess of the amount due plaintiff. (Par. 10, Stipulation of Facts).It was necessary for plaintiff to give Manuel Gonzales change in the sum P158.25 (Par. 10, Stipulation of Facts). Since Manuel Gonzales is the party obliged to pay, plaintiff should have been more cautious and wary in accepting a piece of paper and disbursing cold cash.The check is payable to bearer. Hence, any person who holds it should have been subjected to inquiries. EVEN IN A BANK, CHECKS ARE NOT CASHED WITHOUT INQUIRY FROM THE BEARER. The same inquiries should have been made by plaintiff. (Defendants-appellants' brief, pp. 52-53)Answering the first contention of appellant, counsel for plaintiff-appellee argues that in accordance with the best authority on the Negotiable Instruments Law, plaintiff-appellee may be considered as a holder in due course, citing Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law, 6th edition, page 252. On this issue Brannan holds that a payee may be a holder in due course and says that to this effect is the greater weight of authority, thus:Whether the payee may be a holder in due course under the N. I. L., as he was at common law, is a question upon which the courts are in serious conflict. There can be no doubt that a proper interpretation of the act read as a whole leads to the conclusion that a payee may be a holder in due course under any circumstance in which he meets the requirements of Sec. 52.The argument of Professor Brannan in an earlier edition of this work has never been successfully answered and is here repeated.Section 191 defines "holder" as the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. Sec. 52 defendants defines a holder in due course as "a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: 1. That it is complete and regular on its face. 2. That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact. 3. That he took it in good faith and for value. 4. That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it."Since "holder", as defined in sec. 191, includes a payee who is in possession the word holder in the first clause of sec. 52 and in the second subsection may be replaced by the definition in sec. 191 so as to read "a holder in due course is a payee or indorsee who is in possession," etc. (Brannan's on Negotiable Instruments Law, 6th ed., p. 543).The first argument of the defendants-appellants, therefore, depends upon whether or not the plaintiff-appellee is a holder in due course. If it is such a holder in due course, it is immaterial that it was the payee and an immediate party to the instrument.The other contention of the plaintiff is that there has been no negotiation of the instrument, because the drawer did not deliver the instrument to Manuel Gonzales with the intention of negotiating the same, or for the purpose of giving effect thereto, for as the stipulation of facts declares the check was to remain in the possession Manuel Gonzales, and was not to be negotiated, but was to serve merely as evidence of good faith of defendants in their desire to purchase the car being sold to them. Admitting that such was the intention of the drawer of the check when she delivered it to Manuel Gonzales, it was no fault of the plaintiff-appellee drawee if Manuel Gonzales delivered the check or negotiated it. As the check was payable to the plaintiff-appellee, and was entrusted to Manuel Gonzales by Gatchalian, the delivery to Manuel Gonzales was a delivery by the drawer to his own agent; in other words, Manuel Gonzales was the agent of the drawer Anita Gatchalian insofar as the possession of the check is concerned. So, when the agent of drawer Manuel Gonzales negotiated the check with the intention of getting its value from plaintiff-appellee, negotiation took place through no fault of the plaintiff-appellee, unless it can be shown that the plaintiff-appellee should be considered as having notice of the defect in the possession of the holder Manuel Gonzales. Our resolution of this issue leads us to a consideration of the last question presented by the appellants, i.e., whether the plaintiff-appellee may be considered as a holder in due course.Section 52, Negotiable Instruments Law, defines holder in due course, thus:A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions:(a) That it is complete and regular upon its face;(b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact;(c) That he took it in good faith and for value;(d) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.The stipulation of facts expressly states that plaintiff-appellee was not aware of the circumstances under which the check was delivered to Manuel Gonzales, but we agree with the defendants-appellants that the circumstances indicated by them in their briefs, such as the fact that appellants had no obligation or liability to the Ocampo Clinic; that the amount of the check did not correspond exactly with the obligation of Matilde Gonzales to Dr. V. R. de Ocampo; and that the check had two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner, which practice means that the check could only be deposited but may not be converted into cash all these circumstances should have put the plaintiff-appellee to inquiry as to the why and wherefore of the possession of the check by Manuel Gonzales, and why he used it to pay Matilde's account. It was payee's duty to ascertain from the holder Manuel Gonzales what the nature of the latter's title to the check was or the nature of his possession. Having failed in this respect, we must declare that plaintiff-appellee was guilty of gross neglect in not finding out the nature of the title and possession of Manuel Gonzales, amounting to legal absence of good faith, and it may not be considered as a holder of the check in good faith. To such effect is the consensus of authority.In order to show that the defendant had "knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith," it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the exact fraud that was practiced upon the plaintiff by the defendant's assignor, it being sufficient to show that the defendant had notice that there was something wrong about his assignor's acquisition of title, although he did not have notice of the particular wrong that was committed. Paika v. Perry, 225 Mass. 563, 114 N.E. 830.It is sufficient that the buyer of a note had notice or knowledge that the note was in some way tainted with fraud. It is not necessary that he should know the particulars or even the nature of the fraud, since all that is required is knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the note amounted bad faith. Ozark Motor Co. v. Horton (Mo. App.), 196 S.W. 395. Accord. Davis v. First Nat. Bank, 26 Ariz. 621, 229 Pac. 391.Liberty bonds stolen from the plaintiff were brought by the thief, a boy fifteen years old, less than five feet tall, immature in appearance and bearing on his face the stamp a degenerate, to the defendants' clerk for sale. The boy stated that they belonged to his mother. The defendants paid the boy for the bonds without any further inquiry. Held, the plaintiff could recover the value of the bonds. The term 'bad faith' does not necessarily involve furtive motives, but means bad faith in a commercial sense. The manner in which the defendants conducted their Liberty Loan department provided an easy way for thieves to dispose of their plunder. It was a case of "no questions asked." Although gross negligence does not of itself constitute bad faith, it is evidence from which bad faith may be inferred. The circumstances thrust the duty upon the defendants to make further inquiries and they had no right to shut their eyes deliberately to obvious facts. Morris v. Muir, 111 Misc. Rep. 739, 181 N.Y. Supp. 913, affd. in memo., 191 App. Div. 947, 181 N.Y. Supp. 945." (pp. 640-642, Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law, 6th ed.).The above considerations would seem sufficient to justify our ruling that plaintiff-appellee should not be allowed to recover the value of the check. Let us now examine the express provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law pertinent to the matter to find if our ruling conforms thereto. Section 52 (c) provides that a holder in due course is one who takes the instrument "in good faith and for value;" Section 59, "that every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course;" and Section 52 (d), that in order that one may be a holder in due course it is necessary that "at the time the instrument was negotiated to him "he had no notice of any . . . defect in the title of the person negotiating it;" and lastly Section 59, that every holder is deemed prima facieto be a holder in due course.In the case at bar the rule that a possessor of the instrument is prima faciea holder in due course does not apply because there was a defect in the title of the holder (Manuel Gonzales), because the instrument is not payable to him or to bearer. On the other hand, the stipulation of facts indicated by the appellants in their brief, like the fact that the drawer had no account with the payee; that the holder did not show or tell the payee why he had the check in his possession and why he was using it for the payment of his own personal account show that holder's title was defective or suspicious, to say the least. As holder's title was defective or suspicious, it cannot be stated that the payee acquired the check without knowledge of said defect in holder's title, and for this reason the presumption that it is a holder in due course or that it acquired the instrument in good faith does not exist. And having presented no evidence that it acquired the check in good faith, it (payee) cannot be considered as a holder in due course. In other words, under the circumstances of the case, instead of the presumption that payee was a holder in good faith, the fact is that it acquired possession of the instrument under circumstances that should have put it to inquiry as to the title of the holder who negotiated the check to it. The burden was, therefore, placed upon it to show that notwithstanding the suspicious circumstances, it acquired the check in actual good faith.The rule applicable to the case at bar is that described in the case of Howard National Bank v. Wilson, et al., 96 Vt. 438, 120 At. 889, 894, where the Supreme Court of Vermont made the following disquisition:Prior to the Negotiable Instruments Act, two distinct lines of cases had developed in this country. The first had its origin in Gill v. Cubitt, 3 B. & C. 466, 10 E. L. 215, where the rule was distinctly laid down by the court of King's Bench that the purchaser of negotiable paper must exercise reasonable prudence and caution, and that, if the circumstances were such as ought to have excited the suspicion of a prudent and careful man, and he made no inquiry, he did not stand in the legal position of a bona fide holder. The rule was adopted by the courts of this country generally and seem to have become a fixed rule in the law of negotiable paper. Later in Goodman v. Harvey, 4 A. & E. 870, 31 E. C. L. 381, the English court abandoned its former position and adopted the rule that nothing short of actual bad faith or fraud in the purchaser would deprive him of the character of a bona fide purchaser and let in defenses existing between prior parties, that no circumstances of suspicion merely, or want of proper caution in the purchaser, would have this effect, and that even gross negligence would have no effect, except as evidence tending to establish bad faith or fraud. Some of the American courts adhered to the earlier rule, while others followed the change inaugurated in Goodman v. Harvey. The question was before this court in Roth v. Colvin, 32 Vt. 125, and, on full consideration of the question, a rule was adopted in harmony with that announced in Gill v. Cubitt, which has been adhered to in subsequent cases, including those cited above. Stated briefly, one line of cases including our own had adopted the test of the reasonably prudent man and the other that of actual good faith. It would seem that it was the intent of the Negotiable Instruments Act to harmonize this disagreement by adopting the latter test. That such is the view generally accepted by the courts appears from a recent review of the cases concerning what constitutes notice of defect. Brannan on Neg. Ins. Law, 187-201. To effectuate the general purpose of the act to make uniform the Negotiable Instruments Law of those states which should enact it, we are constrained to hold (contrary to the rule adopted in our former decisions) that negligence on the part of the plaintiff, or suspicious circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man on inquiry, will not of themselves prevent a recovery, but are to be considered merely as evidence bearing on the question of bad faith. See G. L. 3113, 3172, where such a course is required in construing other uniform acts.It comes to this then: When the case has taken such shape that the plaintiff is called upon to prove himself a holder in due course to be entitled to recover, he is required to establish the conditions entitling him to standing as such, including good faith in taking the instrument. It devolves upon him to disclose the facts and circumstances attending the transfer, from which good or bad faith in the transaction may be inferred.In the case at bar as the payee acquired the check under circumstances which should have put it to inquiry, why the holder had the check and used it to pay his own personal account, the duty devolved upon it, plaintiff-appellee, to prove that it actually acquired said check in good faith. The stipulation of facts contains no statement of such good faith, hence we are forced to the conclusion that plaintiff payee has not proved that it acquired the check in good faith and may not be deemed a holder in due course thereof.For the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby, reversed, and the defendants are absolved from the complaint. With costs against plaintiff-appellee.Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur. Bengzon, C.J., concurs in the result.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

G.R. No. 101163 January 11, 1993STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and NORA B. MOULIC, respondents.Escober, Alon & Associates for petitioner.Martin D. Pantaleon for private respondents.BELLOSILLO, J.:The liability to a holder in due course of the drawer of checks issued to another merely as security, and the right of a real estate mortgagee after extrajudicial foreclosure to recover the balance of the obligation, are the issues in this Petition for Review of the Decision of respondent Court of Appeals.Private respondent Nora B. Moulic issued to Corazon Victoriano, as security for pieces of jewelry to be sold on commission, two (2) post-dated Equitable Banking Corporation checks in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each, one dated 30 August 1979 and the other, 30 September 1979. Thereafter, the payee negotiated the checks to petitioner State Investment House. Inc. (STATE).MOULIC failed to sell the pieces of jewelry, so she returned them to the payee before maturity of the checks. The checks, however, could no longer be retrieved as they had already been negotiated. Consequently, before their maturity dates, MOULIC withdrew her funds from the drawee bank.Upon presentment for payment, the checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. On 20 December 1979, STATE allegedly notified MOULIC of the dishonor of the checks and requested that it be paid in cash instead, although MOULIC avers that no such notice was given her.On 6 October 1983, STATE sued to recover the value of the checks plus attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.In her Answer, MOULIC contends that she incurred no obligation on the checks because the jewelry was never sold and the checks were negotiated without her knowledge and consent. She also instituted a Third-Party Complaint against Corazon Victoriano, who later assumed full responsibility for the checks.On 26 May 1988, the trial court dismissed the Complaint as well as the Third-Party Complaint, and ordered STATE to pay MOULIC P3,000.00 for attorney's fees.STATE elevated the order of dismissal to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court on the ground that the Notice of Dishonor to MOULIC was made beyond the period prescribed by the Negotiable Instruments Law and that even if STATE did serve such notice on MOULIC within the reglementary period it would be of no consequence as the checks should never have been presented for payment. The sale of the jewelry was never effected; the checks, therefore, ceased to serve their purpose as security for the jewelry.We are not persuaded.The negotiability of the checks is not in dispute. Indubitably, they were negotiable. After all, at the pre-trial, the parties agreed to limit the issue to whether or not STATE was a holder of the checks in due course. 1In this regard, Sec. 52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides Sec. 52. What constitutes a holder in due course. A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upon its face; (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it was previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (c) That he took it in good faith and for value; (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.Culled from the foregoing, a prima facie presumption exists that t