1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL.

ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2007 > September 2007 Decisions > G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS
ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar

Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 146511 : September 5, 2007]

TOMAS ANG, Petitioner, v. ASSOCIATED BANK AND ANTONIO ANG ENG LIONG, Respondents.

DECISION

AZCUNA, J.:

This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules on Civil Procedure seeks to review the October 9, 2000 Decision1
and December 26, 2000 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53413 which reversed and set aside the
January 5, 1996 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City, in Civil Case No. 20,299-90, dismissing
the complaint filed by respondents for collection of a sum of money.

On August 28, 1990, respondent Associated Bank (formerly Associated Banking Corporation and now known as United
Overseas Bank Philippines) filed a collection suit against Antonio Ang Eng Liong and petitioner Tomas Ang for the two
(2) promissory notes that they executed as principal debtor and co-maker, respectively.

In the Complaint,4 respondent Bank alleged that on October 3 and 9, 1978, the defendants obtained a loan of P50,000,
evidenced by a promissory note bearing PN-No. DVO-78-382, and P30,000, evidenced by a promissory note bearing
PN-No. DVO-78-390. As agreed, the loan would be payable, jointly and severally, on January 31, 1979 and December
8, 1978, respectively. In addition, subsequent amendments5 to the promissory notes as well as the disclosure
statements6 stipulated that the loan would earn 14% interest rate per annum, 2% service charge per annum, 1%
penalty charge per month from due date until fully paid, and attorney's fees equivalent to 20% of the outstanding
obligation.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
Despite repeated demands for payment, the latest of which were on September 13, 1988 and September 9, 1986, on
Antonio Ang Eng Liong and Tomas Ang, respectively, respondent Bank claimed that the defendants failed and refused to
settle their obligation, resulting in a total indebtedness of P539,638.96 as of July 31, 1990, broken down as follows:

PN-No. DVO-78-382 PN-No. DVO-78-390

Outstanding Balance P50,000.00 P30,000.00

Add Past due charges for 4,199 days Past due charges for 4,253 days
(from 01-31-79 to 07-31-90) (from 12-8-78 to 07-31-90)

14% Interest P203,538.98 P125,334.41

2% Service Charge P11,663.89 P7,088.34

ChanRobles Intellectual 12% Overdue Charge P69,983.34 P42,530.00

Property Division
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 1/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…

Total P285,186.21 P174,952.75

Less: Charges paid P500.00 None

Amount Due P334,686.21 P204,952.75

In his Answer,7 Antonio Ang Eng Liong only admitted to have secured a loan amounting to P80,000. He pleaded though
that the bank "be ordered to submit a more reasonable computation" considering that there had been "no correct and
reasonable statement of account" sent to him by the bank, which was allegedly collecting excessive interest, penalty
charges, and attorney's fees despite knowledge that his business was destroyed by fire, hence, he had no source of
income for several years.

For his part, petitioner Tomas Ang filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-claim.8 He interposed the affirmative
defenses that: the bank is not the real party in interest as it is not the holder of the promissory notes, much less a
holder for value or a holder in due course; the bank knew that he did not receive any valuable consideration for affixing
his signatures on the notes but merely lent his name as an accommodation party; he accepted the promissory notes in
blank, with only the printed provisions and the signature of Antonio Ang Eng Liong appearing therein; it was the bank
which completed the notes upon the orders, instructions, or representations of his co-defendant; PN-No. DVO-78-382
was completed in excess of or contrary to the authority given by him to his co-defendant who represented that he
would only borrow P30,000 from the bank; his signature in PN-No. DVO-78-390 was procured through fraudulent
means when his co-defendant claimed that his first loan did not push through; the promissory notes did not indicate in
what capacity he was intended to be bound; the bank granted his co-defendant successive extensions of time within
which to pay, without his (Tomas Ang) knowledge and consent; the bank imposed new and additional stipulations on
interest, penalties, services charges and attorney's fees more onerous than the terms of the notes, without his
knowledge and consent, in the absence of legal and factual basis and in violation of the Usury Law; the bank caused the
inclusion in the promissory notes of stipulations such as waiver of presentment for payment and notice of dishonor
which are against public policy; and the notes had been impaired since they were never presented for payment and
demands were made only several years after they fell due when his co-defendant could no longer pay them.

Regarding his counterclaim, Tomas Ang argued that by reason of the bank's acts or omissions, it should be held liable
for the amount of P50,000 for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. Furthermore, on his cross-claim against
Antonio Ang Eng Liong, he averred that he should be reimbursed by his co-defendant any and all sums that he may be
adjudged liable to pay, plus P30,000, P20,000 and P50,000 for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees,
respectively.
September-2007 Jurisprudence   
               In its Reply,9 respondent Bank countered that it is the real party in interest and is the holder of the notes since the
Associated Banking Corporation and Associated Citizens Bank are its predecessors-in-interest. The fact that Tomas Ang
A.C. No. 5739 - Penelco I v. Montemayor
never received any moneys in consideration of the two (2) loans and that such was known to the bank are immaterial
because, as an accommodation maker, he is considered as a solidary debtor who is primarily liable for the payment of
A.C. No. 3731 - MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. the promissory notes. Citing Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), the bank posited that absence or
ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR failure of consideration is not a matter of defense; neither is the fact that the holder knew him to be only an
accommodation party.
A.M. No. 07-7-343-RTC - RE: ABSENCE
WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE (AWOL) OF MR. Respondent Bank likewise retorted that the promissory notes were completely filled up at the time of their delivery.
ROBERT L. BORCILLO, UTILITY WORKER I, Assuming that such was not the case, Sec. 14 of the NIL provides that the bank has the prima facieauthority to
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY, complete the blank form. Moreover, it is presumed that one who has signed as a maker acted with care and had signed
BRANCH 28. the document with full knowledge of its content. The bank noted that Tomas Ang is a prominent businessman in Davao
City who has been engaged in the auto parts business for several years, hence, certainly he is not so naïve as to sign
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC - THE RULE ON THE the notes without knowing or bothering to verify the amounts of the loans covered by them. Further, he is already in
WRIT OF AMPARO
estoppel since despite receipt of several demand letters there was not a single protest raised by him that he signed for
only one note in the amount of P30,000.
A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC - Re: Letter of Judge
Augustus C. Diaz, etc.
It was denied by the bank that there were extensions of time for payment accorded to Antonio Ang Eng Liong. Granting
A.M. No. 07-7-343-RTC - RE: ABSENCE
that such were the case, it said that the same would not relieve Tomas Ang from liability as he would still be liable for
WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE (AWOL) OF MR. the whole obligation less the share of his co-debtor who received the extended term.
ROBERT L. BORCILLO, UTILITY WORKER I,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY, The bank also asserted that there were no additional or new stipulations imposed other than those agreed upon. The
BRANCH 28. penalty charge, service charge, and attorney's fees were reflected in the amendments to the promissory notes and
disclosure statements. Reference to the Usury Law was misplaced as usury is legally non-existent; at present, interest
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1685 - Formerly OCA IPI can be charged depending on the agreement of the lender and the borrower.
No. 05-1792-MTJ - GIDEON B. JUSON v.
JUDGE VICENTE C. MONDRAGON Lastly, the bank contended that the provisions on presentment for payment and notice of dishonor were expressly
waived by Tomas Ang and that such waiver is not against public policy pursuant to Sections 82 (c) and 109 of the NIL.
A.M. No. MTJ-03-1505 - Mamasau Sultan In fact, there is even no necessity therefor since being a solidary debtor he is absolutely required to pay and primarily
Ali v. Hon. Baguinda Ali Pacalna, et al. liable on both promissory notes.

A.M. No. MTJ-06-1649 - Formerly OCA IPI On October 19, 1990, the trial court issued a preliminary pre-trial order directing the parties to submit their respective
No. 04-1605-MTJ - Ang Kek Chen v. Judge
pre-trial guide.10 When Antonio Ang Eng Liong failed to submit his brief, the bank filed an ex-parte motion to declare
Cristina Javalera-Sulit, et al.
him in default.11 Per Order of November 23, 1990, the court granted the motion and set the ex-parte hearing for the
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1667 - OCA v. Judge presentation of the bank's evidence.12 Despite Tomas Ang's motion13 to modify the Order so as to exclude or cancel the
James Go, et al. ex-parte hearing based on then Sec. 4, Rule 18 of the old Rules of Court (now Sec. 3[c.], Rule 9 of the Revised Rules
on Civil Procedure), the hearing nonetheless proceeded.14
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1685 - Formerly OCA IPI
No. 05-1792-MTJ - GIDEON B. JUSON v.
Eventually, a decision15 was rendered by the trial court on February 21, 1991. For his supposed bad faith and obstinate
JUDGE VICENTE C. MONDRAGON
refusal despite several demands from the bank, Antonio Ang Eng Liong was ordered to pay the principal amount of
A.M. No. P-05-1963 - Divina D. Balingit, et
P80,000 plus 14% interest per annum and 2% service charge per annum. The overdue penalty charge and attorney's
al. v. Aurora T. Laranang etc. fees were, however, reduced for being excessive, thus:

A.M. No. P-05-2000 - Atty. Jose A. Suelto WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered against defendant Antonio Ang Eng Liong and in favor of plaintiff,
v. Deputy Sheriffs Rogelio P. Forniza etc., et ordering the former to pay the latter:
al.
On the first cause of action:
A.M. No. P-06-2184 - Marcela Guilas-Gamis
v. Judge Rodolfo P. Beltran, et al. 1) the amount of P50,000.00 representing the principal obligation with 14% interest per
annum from June 27, 1983 with 2% service charge and 6% overdue penalty charges per
A.M. No. P-06-2198 - Formerly OCA IPI No. annum until fully paid;
05-2214-P - Sta. Lucia East commercial Corp
etc. v. Conrado G. Lamano etc. 2) P11,663.89 as accrued service charge; and cralawlibrary

A.M. No. P-06-2238 - Edgar Noel C. Licardo 3) P34,991.67 as accrued overdue penalty charge.
v. Juliet Almonte Licardo, et al.
On the second cause of action:
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043 - JUAN DE LA CRUZ
v. JUDGE RUBEN B. CARRETAS 1) the amount of P50,000.00 (sic) representing the principal account with 14% interest
from June 27, 1983 with 2% service charge and 6% overdue penalty charges per annum
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1621 - Concerned until fully paid;
Boholanos for Law & Order v. Judge Dionisio
R. Calibo Jr etc. 2) P7,088.34 representing accrued service charge;

A.M. NO. RTJ-06-1994 - Formerly A.M. No. 3) P21,265.00 as accrued overdue penalty charge;
06-240-RTC - OCA v. Judge Leoncio M.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 2/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…
Janolo, et al. 4) the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and cralawlibrary

A.M. No. RTJ-06-1995 - Formerly OCA IPI 5) the amount of P620.00 as litigation expenses and to pay the costs.
No. 02-1480-RTJ - Felicidad Tenenan v.
Judge Fernando F. Flor, Jr. SO ORDERED.16
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2083 - Formerly A.M. OCA The decision became final and executory as no appeal was taken therefrom. Upon the bank's ex-parte motion, the court
IPI No. 06-2489-RTJ - Benjamin M. Mina, Jr.
accordingly issued a writ of execution on April 5, 1991.17
v. Judge Pedro B. Corales etc.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043 - JUAN DE LA CRUZ Thereafter, on June 3, 1991, the court set the pre-trial conference between the bank and Tomas Ang,18 who, in turn,
v. JUDGE RUBEN B. CARRETAS filed a Motion to Dismiss19 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the case in view of the alleged finality of the
February 21, 1991 Decision. He contended that Sec. 4, Rule 18 of the old Rules sanctions only one judgment in case of
G.R. No. 130348 - MIGUEL SORIANO, JR., several defendants, one of whom is declared in default. Moreover, in his Supplemental Motion to Dismiss,20 Tomas Ang
ET AL. v. ANTERO SORIANO, ET AL. maintained that he is released from his obligation as a solidary guarantor and accommodation party because, by the
bank's actions, he is now precluded from asserting his cross-claim against Antonio Ang Eng Liong, upon whom a final
G.R. No. 132403 and G.R. NO. 132419 - Hi-
and executory judgment had already been issued.
Cement Corp. v. Insular Bank of Asia &
America / E.T. Henry & Co. et al v. Insular /
Bank of Asia & America. The court denied the motion as well as the motion for reconsideration thereon.21 Tomas Ang subsequently filed a
Petition for Certiorari and prohibition before this Court, which, however, resolved to refer the same to the Court of
G.R. No. 132502 and G.R. No. 132503 - Appeals.22 In accordance with the prayer of Tomas Ang, the appellate court promulgated its Decision on January 29,
BENIGNO M. PUNO, ET AL. v. THE COURT OF 1992 in CA G.R. SP No. 26332, which annulled and set aside the portion of the Order dated November 23, 1990 setting
APPEALS, ET AL. the ex-parte presentation of the bank's evidence against Antonio Ang Eng Liong, the Decision dated February 21, 1991
rendered against him based on such evidence, and the Writ of Execution issued on April 5, 1991.23
G.R. NOS. 137355-58 - Eugen U. Caballero,
et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al.
Trial then ensued between the bank and Tomas Ang. Upon the latter's motion during the pre-trial conference, Antonio
G.R. No. 137548 - HEIRS OF THE LATE Ang Eng Liong was again declared in default for his failure to answer the cross-claim within the reglementary period.24
DOMINGO N. NICOLAS v. METROPOLITAN
BANK & TRUST COMPANY When Tomas Ang was about to present evidence in his behalf, he filed a Motion for Production of Documents,25
reasoning:
G.R. No. 138142 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD
HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST xxx
LOANS, ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A.
DESIERTO, ET AL. 2. That corroborative to, and/or preparatory or incident to his testimony[,] there is [a] need for him to
examine original records in the custody and possession of plaintiff, viz:
G.R. No. 140337 - Ake Hernudd, et al v.
Lars E. Lofgren, et al. A. original Promissory Note (PN for brevity) # DVO-78-382 dated October 3, 1978[;]

G.R. No. 140474 - Municipality of Sta. Fe v. b. original of Disclosure Statement in reference to PN # DVO-78-382;
Municipality of Aritao
c. original of PN # DVO-78-390 dated October 9, 1978;
G.R. No. 140656 and G.R. No. 154482 -
MAYOR FELIPE K. CONSTANTINO v. HON. d. original of Disclosure Statement in reference to PN # DVO-78-390;
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
e. Statement or Record of Account with the Associated Banking Corporation or its
G.R. No. 142896 - CANELAND SUGAR successor, of Antonio Ang in CA No. 470 (cf. Exh. O) including bank records, withdrawal
CORPORATION v. HON. REYNALDO M. ALON, slips, notices, other papers and relevant dates relative to the overdraft of Antonio Eng
ET AL. Liong in CA No. 470;
G.R. No. 144208 - EFREN TANDOG, ET AL. f. Loan Applications of Antonio Ang Eng Liong or borrower relative to PN Nos. DVO-78-382
v. RENATO MACAPAGAL, ET AL. and DVO-78-390 (supra);
G.R. No. 146212 - FRED N. BELLO v. g. Other supporting papers and documents submitted by Antonio Ang Eng Liong relative to
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
his loan application vis - Ã -vis PN. Nos. DVO-78-382 and DVO-78-390 such as financial
ET AL.
statements, income tax returns, etc. as required by the Central Bank or bank rules and
G.R. No. 146221 - Atlas Consolidated
regulations.
Mining & Devt. Corp. v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue
3. That the above matters are very material to the defenses of defendant Tomas Ang, viz:

G.R. No. 146259 - FLORENTINO, TROADIO

- the bank is not a holder in due course when it accepted the [PNs] in blank.
& PEDRO ALL SURNAMED OCHOA v. MAURO
APETA, ET AL. - The real borrower is Antonio Ang Eng Liong which fact is known to the bank.

G.R. No. 146454 - PAMELA S. SEVILLENO,

- That the PAYEE not being a holder in due course and knowing that defendant Tomas Ang
ET AL. v. PACITA CARILO, ET AL. is merely an accommodation party, the latter may raise against such payee or holder or
successor-in-interest (of the notes) PERSONAL and EQUITABLE DEFENSES such as FRAUD
G.R. No. 147695 - MANUEL C. in INDUCEMENT, DISCHARGE ON NOTE, Application of [Articles] 2079, 2080 and 1249 of
PAGTALUNAN v. RUFINA DELA CRUZ VDA. DE the Civil Code, NEGLIGENCE in delaying collection despite Eng Liong's OVERDRAFT in C.A.
MANZANO No. 470, etc.26

G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. In its Order dated May 16, 1994,27 the court denied the motion stating that the promissory notes and the disclosure
ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL.
statements have already been shown to and inspected by Tomas Ang during the trial, as in fact he has already copies of
the same; the Statements or Records of Account of Antonio Ang Eng Liong in CA No. 470, relative to his overdraft, are
G.R. No. 147961 - FOREVER SECURITY &
GENERAL SERVICES v. ROMEO FLORES, ET
immaterial since, pursuant to the previous ruling of the court, he is being sued for the notes and not for the overdraft
AL. which is personal to Antonio Ang Eng Liong; and besides its non-existence in the bank's records, there would be legal
obstacle for the production and inspection of the income tax return of Antonio Ang Eng Liong if done without his
G.R. No. 148308 - Roberto D. Debaudln v. consent.
Social Security System, et al.
When the motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was denied, Tomas Ang filed a Petition for Certiorari and
G.R. No. 148325 - REYNALDO P. prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and restraining order before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA
FLOIRENDO, JR. v. METROPOLITAN BANK G.R. SP No. 34840.28 On August 17, 1994, however, the Court of Appeals denied the issuance of a Temporary
and TRUST COMPANY
Restraining Order.29
G.R. No. 148846 - Cecilia Amodia Vda De
Meanwhile, notwithstanding its initial rulings that Tomas Ang was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence
Melencion, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et
for failure to appear during the pendency of his petition before the Court of Appeals, the trial court decided to continue
al.
with the hearing of the case.30
G.R. No. 148980 - PCI Leasing & Finance
Inc v. Sps. George M. Dai etc. After the trial, Tomas Ang offered in evidence several documents, which included a copy of the Trust Agreement
between the Republic of the Philippines and the Asset Privatization Trust, as certified by the notary public, and news
G.R. No. 149023 - Leo Winston Brin Lee v. clippings from the Manila Bulletin dated May 18, 1994 and May 30, 1994.31 All the documentary exhibits were admitted
Sps. Amadeo & Adelaida Carreon for failure of the bank to submit its comment to the formal offer.32 Thereafter, Tomas Ang elected to withdraw his
G.R. No. 149072 - Esther S. Pagano v. Juan
petition in CA G.R. SP No. 34840 before the Court of Appeals, which was then granted.33
Nazarro Jr., et al.
On January 5, 1996, the trial court rendered judgment against the bank, dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of
G.R. No. 149625 - Weena Express Inc. v. action.34 It held that:
Godofredo R. Rapacon, et al.
Exh. "9" and its [sub-markings], the Trust Agreement dated 27 February 1987 for the defense shows
G.R. No. 149372 - RICARDO BACABAC v. that: the Associated Bank as of June 30, 1986 is one of DBP's or Development Bank of the [Philippines']
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES non-performing accounts for transfer; on February 27, 1987 through Deeds of Transfer executed by and
between the Philippine National Bank and Development Bank of the Philippines and the National
G.R. No. 149858 - FRANCISCO M. BAX v. Government, both financial institutions assigned, transferred and conveyed their non-performing assets
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. to the National Government; the National Government in turn and as TRUSTOR, transferred, conveyed
and assigned by way of trust unto the Asset Privatization Trust said non-performing assets, [which] took
G.R. No. 149995 - Isidro Pablito M. Palana title to and possession of, [to] conserve, provisionally manage and dispose[,] of said assets identified for
v. People of the Philippines
privatization or disposition; one of the powers and duties of the APT with respect to trust properties

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 3/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…
consisting of receivables is to handle the administration, collection and enforcement of the receivables; to
G.R. No. 150173 - PACIFICO GARING, ET bring suit to enforce payment of the obligations or any installment thereof or to settle or compromise any
AL. v. HEIRS OF MARCOS SILVA, ET AL. of such obligations, or any other claim or demand which the government may have against any person or
persons[.]
G.R. NOS. 150329-30 - RONALD K. GO, ET
AL. v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET The Manila Bulletin news clippings dated May 18, 1994 and May 30, 1994, Exh. "9-A", "9-B", "9-C", and
AL.
"9-D", show that the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the rehabilitation plan
of the Associated Bank. One main feature of the rehabilitation plan included the financial assistance for
G.R. No. 150731 - CASENT REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. PHILBANKING the bank by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) by way of the purchase of AB Assets
CORPORATION worth P1.3945 billion subject to a buy-back arrangement over a 10 year period. The PDIC had approved
of the rehab scheme, which included the purchase of AB's bad loans worth P1.86 at 25% discount. This
G.R. No. 152273 - MARS C. PALISOC v. will then be paid by AB within a 10-year period plus a yield comparable to the prevailing market rates x x
EASWAYS MARINE, INC., ET AL. x.

G.R. No. 152407 - Sps. Florendo Dauz etc, Based then on the evidence presented by the defendant Tomas Ang, it would readily appear that at the
et al. v. Sps. Eligio & Lorenza Chavez, et al. time this suit for Sum of Money was filed which was on August [28], 1990, the notes were held by the
Asset Privatization Trust by virtue of the Deeds of Transfer and Trust Agreement, which was empowered
G.R. NOS. 152505-06 - PRUDENTIAL to bring suit to enforce payment of the obligations. Consequently, defendant Tomas Ang has sufficiently
GUARANTEE and ASSURANCE, INC. v. established that plaintiff at the time this suit was filed was not the holder of the notes to warrant the
EQUINOX LAND CORPORATION
dismissal of the complaint.35
G.R. No. 153029 - Bea Triz etc. all
Respondent Bank then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. In the appellant's brief captioned, "ASSOCIATED
Surnamed Acre v. Evangeline Yuttikki
BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ANTONIO ANG ENG LIONG and TOMAS ANG, Defendants, TOMAS ANG, Defendant-
G.R. No. 154276 - Conrado Cuyugan v. Appellee," the following errors were alleged:
Rodolfo Siasoco
I.
G.R. No. 153290 - BMG RECORDS (PHILS.),
INC., ET AL. v. AIDA C. APARECIO, ET AL. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING DEFENDANT ANTONIO ANG ENG LIONG AND DEFENDANT-
APPELLEE TOMAS ANG LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ON THEIR UNPAID LOANS DESPITE THE
G.R. No. 154438 - ALICIA F. RICAFORTE v. LATTER'S DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS PROVING THE SAID OBLIGATIONS.
LEON L. JURADO
II.
G.R. No. 154654 - JOSEPHINE A.
TAGUINOD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF
AL. NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS WHICH WERE COMPLETELY HEARSAY IN CHARACTER AND IMPROPER FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE.36
G.R. No. 155731 - LOLITA LOPEZ v.
BODEGA CITY, ET AL. The bank stressed that it has established the causes of action outlined in its Complaint by a preponderance of evidence.
As regards the Deed of Transfer and Trust Agreement, it contended that the same were never authenticated by any
G.R. No. 155903 - C.F. SHARP CREW witness in the course of the trial; the Agreement, which was not even legible, did not mention the promissory notes
MANAGEMENT, INC. v. HON.
subject of the Complaint; the bank is not a party to the Agreement, which showed that it was between the Government
UNDERSECRETARY JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR., ET
of the Philippines, acting through the Committee on Privatization represented by the Secretary of Finance as trustor and
AL.
the Asset Privatization Trust, which was created by virtue of Proclamation No. 50; and the Agreement did not reflect the
G.R. No. 155990 - UNIVERSAL AQUARIUS, signatures of the contracting parties. Lastly, the bank averred that the news items appearing in the Manila Bulletin
INC., ET AL. v. Q.C. HUMAN RESOURCES could not be the subject of judicial notice since they were completely hearsay in character.37
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
On October 9, 2000, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court's ruling. The dispositive portion of the
G.R. No. 156100 - VILMA E. ROMAGOS v. Decision38 reads:
METRO CEBU WATER DISTRICT, ET AL.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16, in
G.R. No. 156337 - UCPB v. Alberto T. Civil Case No. 20,299-90 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and another one entered ordering
Looyuko, et al. defendant-appellee Tomas Ang to pay plaintiff-appellant Associated Bank the following:
G.R. No. 156364 - JACOBUS BERNHARD 1. P50,000.00 representing the principal amount of the loan under PN-No. DVO-78-382 plus 14% interest
HULST v. PR BUILDERS, INC.
thereon per annum computed from January 31, 1979 until the full amount thereof is paid;
G.R. No. 156539 - DOMINGO A. DIZON v.
2. P30,000.00 representing the principal amount of the loan under PN-No. DVO-78-390 plus 14% interest
ELPIDIO R. DIZON
thereon per annum computed from December 8, 1978 until the full amount thereof is paid;
G.R. No. 156905 - ATHENA COMPUTERS,
All other claims of the plaintiff-appellant are DISMISSED for lack of legal basis. Defendant-appellee's
INC., ET AL. v. WESNU A. REYES
counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED for lack of legal and factual bases.
G.R. No. 157076 - PROGRESSIVE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - PIZZA HUT, No pronouncement as to costs.
ET AL. v. EVERGISTO ANTONIO E.
SARMIENTO, ET AL. SO ORDERED.39

G.R. No. 157201 - Nemrod Gotis v. People The appellate court disregarded the bank's first assigned error for being "irrelevant in the final determination of the
of the Philippines case" and found its second assigned error as "not meritorious." Instead, it posed for resolution the issue of whether the
trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for collection of sum of money for lack of cause of action as the bank was
G.R. No. 157472 - Ssgt. Jose M. Pacoy v. said to be not the "holder" of the notes at the time the collection case was filed.
Hon. Afable E. Cajigal, et al.
In answering the lone issue, the Court of Appeals held that the bank is a "holder" under Sec. 191 of the NIL. It
G.R. No. 157856 - Concepcion C. Anillo v. concluded that despite the execution of the Deeds of Transfer and Trust Agreement, the Asset Privatization Trust cannot
Commission on the Settlement of Land be declared as the "holder" of the subject promissory notes for the reason that it is neither the payee or indorsee of the
Problems etc, et al. notes in possession thereof nor is it the bearer of said notes. The Court of Appeals observed that the bank, as the
payee, did not indorse the notes to the Asset Privatization Trust despite the execution of the Deeds of Transfer and
G.R. No. 158897 - REPUBLIC OF THE
Trust Agreement and that the notes continued to remain with the bank until the institution of the collection suit.
PHILIPPINES v. FREDESVINDA ALMEDA
CONSUNJI
With the bank as the "holder" of the promissory notes, the Court of Appeals held that Tomas Ang is accountable
therefor in his capacity as an accommodation party. Citing Sec. 29 of the NIL, he is liable to the bank in spite of the
G.R. No. 159343 - Pedy Caseres, et al. v.
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp., et al. latter's knowledge, at the time of taking the notes, that he is only an accommodation party. Moreover, as a co-maker
who agreed to be jointly and severally liable on the promissory notes, Tomas Ang cannot validly set up the defense that
G.R. No. 159349 - VICTOR ANDRES he did not receive any consideration therefor as the fact that the loan was granted to the principal debtor already
MANHIT v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET constitutes a sufficient consideration.
AL.
Further, the Court of Appeals agreed with the bank that the experience of Tomas Ang in business rendered it
G.R. No. 159974 - JESUS CAYABYAB, ET implausible that he would just sign the promissory notes as a co-maker without even checking the real amount of the
AL. v. ROSEMARIE GOMEZ DE AQUINO, ETC. debt to be incurred, or that he merely acted on the belief that the first loan application was cancelled. According to the
appellate court, it is apparent that he was negligent in falling for the alibi of Antonio Ang Eng Liong and such fact would
G.R. No. 161098 - Office of the not serve to exonerate him from his responsibility under the notes.
Ombudsman v. Celso Santiago
Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals denied the claims of the bank for service, penalty and overdue charges as well as
G.R. No. 160303 - G & S Transport Corp v. attorney's fees on the ground that the promissory notes made no mention of such charges/fees.
Tito S. Infante, et al.
In his motion for reconsideration,40 Tomas Ang raised for the first time the assigned errors as follows:
G.R. No. 161735 - Ex-C1C Jimmy B.
Sanchez, et al. v. Roberto T. Lastimoso etc. xxx
G.R. No. 163130 - SAN ROQUE REALTY 2) Related to the above jurisdictional issues, defendant-appellee Tomas Ang has recently discovered that
AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.
upon the filing of the complaint on August 28, 1990, under the jurisdictional rule laid down in BP Blg.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
129, appellant bank fraudulently failed to specify the amount of compounded interest at 14% per annum,
G.R. No. 164710 - Ronald C. Jaucian v. service charges at 2% per annum and overdue penalty charges at 12% per annum in the prayer of the
Gen. Reynaldo G. Wycoco, et al. complaint as of the time of its filing, paying a total of only P640.00(!!!) as filing and court docket fees
although the total sum involved as of that time was P647,566.75 including 20% attorney's fees. In fact,
the stated interest in the body of the complaint alone amount to P328,373.39 (which is actually

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 4/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…
G.R. No. 164733 - Michael John Z. Malto v. compounded and capitalized) in both causes of action and the total service and overdue penalties and
People of the Philippines charges and attorney's fees further amount to P239,193.36 in both causes of action, as of July 31, 1990,
the time of filing of the complaint. Significantly, appellant fraudulently misled the Court, describing the
G.R. No. 165272 - Sergio Osme a III, et al. 14% imposition as interest, when in fact the same was capitalized as principal by appellant bank every
v. SS etc., et al.
month to earn more interest, as stated in the notes. In view thereof, the trial court never acquired
jurisdiction over the case and the same may not be now corrected by the filing of deficiency fees because
G.R. No. 165888 - Sps. Brilly V. Bernardez
etc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.
the causes of action had already prescribed and more importantly, the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Court had been increased to P100,000.00 in principal claims last March 20, 1999, pursuant to SC Circular
G.R. No. 165963 - SPOUSES NORBERTO No. 21-99, section 5 of RA No. 7691, and section 31, Book I of the 1987 Administrative Code. In other
OLIVEROS, ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE words, as of today, jurisdiction over the subject falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, particularly if the bank foregoes capitalization of the stipulated interest.
BRANCH 24, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, ET AL.
3) BY FAILING TO GIVE NOTICE OF ITS APPEAL AND APPEAL BRIEF TO APPELLEE ANG ENG LIONG, THE
G.R. No. 165971 - SPOUSES JEANETTE APPEALED JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH LEFT OUT TOMAS ANG'S CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST
MALIWAT, ET AL. v. METROPOLITAN BANK & ENG LIONG (BECAUSE IT DISMISSED THE MAIN CLAIM), HAD LONG BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY,
TRUST COMPANY AS AGAINST ENG LIONG. Accordingly, Tomas Ang's right of subrogation against Ang Eng Liong,
expressed in his cross-claim, is now SEVERAL TIMES foreclosed because of the fault or negligence of
G.R. No. 165975 - Payakan G. Tilendo v. appellant bank since 1979 up to its insistence of an ex-parte trial, and now when it failed to serve notice
Ombudsman, et al.
of appeal and appellant's brief upon him. Accordingly, appellee Tomas Ang should be released from his
suretyship obligation pursuant to Art. 2080 of the Civil Code. The above is related to the issues above-
G.R. No. 166241 - RUBEN LASCANO v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
stated.

G.R. No. 166547 - UMBRA M. TOMAWIS v.

4) This Court may have erred in ADDING or ASSIGNING its own bill of error for the benefit of appellant
ATTY. NORA M. TABAO-CAUDANG bank which defrauded the judiciary by the payment of deficient docket fees.41

G.R. No. 166800 and G.R. NO. 168924 - Finding no cogent or compelling reason to disturb the Decision, the Court of Appeals denied the motion in its Resolution
Leca Realty Corp. v. Manuela Corp, et al/Leca dated December 26, 2000.42
Realty Corp. v. Manuel Corp, et al.
Petitioner now submits the following issues for resolution:
G.R. No. 167224 - Nolito L. Manago v.
Comelec, et al. 1. Is [A]rticle 2080 of the Civil Code applicable to discharge petitioner Tomas Ang as accommodation
maker or surety because of the failure of [private] respondent bank to serve its notice of appeal upon the
G.R. No. 167637 - Metro Eye Security Inc. principal debtor, respondent Eng Liong? cra lawlibrary

v. Julie V. Salsona
2. Did the trial court have jurisdiction over the case at all?
cra lawlibrary

G.R. No. 168779 - DBP v. Ruben S. Go, et

al. 3. Did the Court of Appeals [commit] error in assigning its own error and raising its own issue? cra lawlibrary

G.R. No. 167670 - PEOPLE OF THE 4. Are petitioner's other real and personal defenses such as successive extensions coupled with
PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO BIYOC y fraudulent collusion to hide Eng Liong's default, the payee's grant of additional burdens, coupled with the
WENCESLAO
insolvency of the principal debtor, and the defense of incomplete but delivered instrument, meritorious?
43
G.R. No. 168781 - CITY OF MAKATI v. THE
HON. JUDGE BRICCIO C. YGAÑA, ET AL.
Petitioner allegedly learned after the promulgation of the Court of Appeals' decision that, pursuant to the parties'
G.R. No. 168902 - Bartola M. Vda De agreement on the compounding of interest with the principal amount (per month in case of default), the interest on the
Tirona, et al. v. Cirilo Encarnacion promissory notes as of July 31, 1990 should have been only P81,647.22 for PN No. DVO-78-382 (instead of
P203,538.98) and P49,618.33 for PN No. DVO-78-390 (instead of P125,334.41) while the principal debt as of said date
G.R. No. 169536 - Remigia Grageda, et al. should increase to P647,566.75 (instead of P539,638.96). He submits that the bank carefully and shrewdly hid the fact
v. Hon. Nimfa C. Gomez, et al. by describing the amounts as interest instead of being part of either the principal or penalty in order to pay a lesser
amount of docket fees. According to him, the total fees that should have been paid at the time of the filing of the
G.R. No. 169059 - THE PEOPLE OF THE complaint on August 28, 1990 was P2,216.30 and not P614.00 or a shortage of 71%. Petitioner contends that the bank
PHILIPPINES v. LAMBERTO RAFON may not now pay the deficiency because the last demand letter sent to him was dated September 9, 1986, or more
than twenty years have elapsed such that prescription had already set in. Consequently, the bank's claim must be
G.R. No. 169752 - Phil. Society for the
dismissed as the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v.
Commission On Audit, et al.
Petitioner also argues that the Court of Appeals should not have assigned its own error and raised it as an issue of the
G.R. No. 169642 - People of the Phil. v.
case, contending that no question should be entertained on appeal unless it has been advanced in the court below or is
Enrique Ceballos, Jr. y Cabrales within the issues made by the parties in the pleadings. At any rate, he opines that the appellate court's decision that
the bank is the real party in interest because it is the payee named in the note or the holder thereof is too simplistic
G.R. No. 169882 - MANOLO P. SAMSON v. since: (1) the power and control of Asset Privatization Trust over the bank are clear from the explicit terms of the duly
CATERPILLAR, INC. certified trust documents and deeds of transfer and are confirmed by the newspaper clippings; (2) even under P.D. No.
902-A or the General Banking Act, where a corporation or a bank is under receivership, conservation or rehabilitation, it
G.R. No. 169801 - Republic of the Phil. etc. is only the representative (liquidator, receiver, trustee or conservator) who may properly act for said entity, and, in this
v. Dona Tilla R. Bautista, et al. case, the bank was held by Asset Privatization Trust as trustee; and (3) it is not entirely accurate to say that the payee
who has not indorsed the notes in all cases is the real party in interest because the rights of the payee may be subject
G.R. No. 170361 - People of the Phil. v. of an assignment of incorporeal rights under Articles 1624 and 1625 of the Civil Code.
Juan De La Tonga Y Perante
Lastly, petitioner maintains that when respondent Bank served its notice of appeal and appellant's brief only on him, it
G.R. No. 170583 - ERNESTO M. FULLERO v. rendered the judgment of the trial court final and executory with respect to Antonio Ang Eng Liong, which, in effect,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
released him (Antonio Ang Eng Liong) from any and all liability under the promissory notes and, thereby, foreclosed
G.R. No. 171008 - Carmelit A. Fudot v.
petitioner's cross-claims. By such act, the bank, even if it be the "holder" of the promissory notes, allegedly discharged
Cattleya Land, Inc. a simple contract for the payment of money (Sections 119 [d] and 122, NIL [Act No. 2031]), prevented a surety like
petitioner from being subrogated in the shoes of his principal (Article 2080, Civil Code), and impaired the notes,
G.R. No. 170928 - Vicente S. Almario v. producing the effect of payment (Article 1249, Civil Code).
PAL Inc.
The petition is unmeritorious.
G.R. No. 171068 - HEIRS OF MARCELINA
ARZADON-CRISOLOGO, ET AL. v. AGRIFINA Procedurally, it is well within the authority of the Court of Appeals to raise, if it deems proper under the circumstances
RAÑON, ET AL. obtaining, error/s not assigned on an appealed case. In Mendoza v. Bautista,44 this Court recognized the broad
discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not
G.R. No. 171153 - SAN MIGUEL assigned, thus:
CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL As a rule, no issue may be raised on appeal unless it has been brought before the lower tribunal for its
WORKERS ORGANIZATION v. SAN MIGUEL consideration. Higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor
PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration
PAMBANSANG DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG
or on appeal.
PILIPINO
However, as with most procedural rules, this maxim is subject to exceptions. Indeed, our rules recognize
G.R. No. 171208 - THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS v. HON. THELMA CANLAS
the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and
TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE, ET AL. to consider errors not assigned. Section 8 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court provides:

G.R. No. 172373 - People of the Phil. v. SEC. 8. Questions that may be decided. - No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject
Jimmy Soriano matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered,
unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and
G.R. No. 172384 - Erminda F. Florentino v. properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.
Superv Alue Inc.
Thus, an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as
G.R. No. 172500 - Lilibeth Aricheta v. errors in the appeal in these instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over
People of the Philippines the subject matter; (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors
within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is
G.R. No. 172602 - HENRY T. GO v. THE necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of
FIFTH DIVISION, ET AL. justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal
but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which
G.R. No. 172697 - People of the Phil. v.
the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal
Reynaldo Villanueva Y Marquez

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 5/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…
but closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which
G.R. No. 173614 - Lolita D. Enrico v. Heirs the determination of a question properly assigned is dependent. (Citations omitted)45
of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli, et al.
To the Court's mind, even if the Court of Appeals regarded petitioner's two assigned errors as "irrelevant" and "not
G.R. No. 173849 - Pier 8 Arrastre & meritorious," the issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for collection of sum of money for
Stevedoring Services Inc., et al. v. Jeff B.
lack of cause of action (on the ground that the bank was not the "holder" of the notes at the time of the filing of the
Boclot
action) is in reality closely related to and determinant of the resolution of whether the lower court correctly ruled in not
G.R. No. 174668 - Marlon T. Sales v. holding Antonio Ang Eng Liong and petitioner Tomas Ang liable to the bank on their unpaid loans despite documentary
COMELEC, et al. exhibits allegedly proving their obligations and in dismissing the complaint based on newspaper clippings. Hence, no
error could be ascribed to the Court of Appeals on this point.
G.R. No. 174771 - People of the Phil. v.
Allan Nazareno Y Caburatan Now, the more relevant question is: who is the real party in interest at the time of the institution of the complaint, is it
the bank or the Asset Privatization Trust? cra lawlibrary

G.R. NOS. 175181-82 and G.R. NOS.

175354 & 175387-88 - METROPOLITAN BANK To answer the query, a brief history on the creation of the Asset Privatization Trust is proper.
and TRUST COMPANY, INC. v. SLGT
HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL. Taking into account the imperative need of formally launching a program for the rationalization of the government
corporate sector, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 5046 on December 8, 1986. As one of the
G.R. No. 175281 Formerly G.R. No. 152240 twin cornerstones of the program was to establish the privatization of a good number of government corporations, the
- The People of the Phil. v. Vincent proclamation created the Asset Privatization Trust, which would, for the benefit of the National Government, take title
Evangelista to and possession of, conserve, provisionally manage and dispose of transferred assets that were identified for
G.R. No. 175333 - People of the Phil. v. privatization or disposition.47
Sonny Rentoria Y Velasco
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2348 of the proclamation, then President Aquino subsequently issued
G.R. No. 175451 - Rosario L. Dadulo v. The Administrative Order No. 14 on February 3, 1987, which approved the identification of and transfer to the National
Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. Government of certain assets (consisting of loans, equity investments, accrued interest receivables, acquired assets and
other assets) and liabilities (consisting of deposits, borrowings, other liabilities and contingent guarantees) of the
G.R. No. 175587 - PCIB v. Joseph Anthony Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and the Philippine National Bank (PNB). The transfer of assets was
M. Alejandro implemented through a Deed of Transfer executed on February 27, 1987 between the National Government, on one
hand, and the DBP and PNB, on the other. In turn, the National Government designated the Asset Privatization Trust to
G.R. No. 175594 - PEOPLE OF THE act as its trustee through a Trust Agreement, whereby the non-performing accounts of DBP and PNB, including, among
PHILIPPINES v. JUNJUN DUCABO
others, the DBP's equity with respondent Bank, were entrusted to the Asset Privatization Trust.49 As provided for in the
G.R. No. 175720 - Cresenciana Tubo Agreement, among the powers and duties of the Asset Privatization Trust with respect to the trust properties consisting
Rodriguez etc. v. Evangeline Rodriguez, et al. of receivables was to handle their administration and collection by bringing suit to enforce payment of the obligations or
any installment thereof or settling or compromising any of such obligations or any other claim or demand which the
G.R. No. 175783 - PEOPLE OF THE Government may have against any person or persons, and to do all acts, institute all proceedings, and to exercise all
PHILIPPINES v. BERNARDO TUAZON Y other rights, powers, and privileges of ownership that an absolute owner of the properties would otherwise have the
NICOLAS right to do.50
G.R. No. 175936 - CHAN CUAN, ET AL. v. Incidentally, the existence of the Asset Privatization Trust would have expired five (5) years from the date of issuance
CHIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE, INC., ET AL.
of Proclamation No. 50.51 However, its original term was extended from December 8, 1991 up to August 31, 1992,52
G.R. No. 175942 - People of the Phil. v. and again from December 31, 1993 until June 30, 1995,53 and then from July 1, 1995 up to December 31, 1999,54 and
Norberto Delim further from January 1, 2000 until December 31, 2000.55 Thenceforth, the Privatization and Management Office was
established and took over, among others, the powers, duties and functions of the Asset Privatization Trust under the
G.R. No. 176153 - People of the Phil. v.
proclamation.56
Oligario Balonzo
Based on the above backdrop, respondent Bank does not appear to be the real party in interest when it instituted the
G.R. No. 176262 - People of the Phil. v.
collection suit on August 28, 1990 against Antonio Ang Eng Liong and petitioner Tomas Ang. At the time the complaint
Edilberto Torres, et al.
was filed in the trial court, it was the Asset Privatization Trust which had the authority to enforce its claims against both
G.R. No. 176267 - PEOPLE OF THE debtors. In fact, during the pre-trial conference, Atty. Roderick Orallo, counsel for the bank, openly admitted that it was
PHILIPPINES v. RANDY ALABADO y DAVID under the trusteeship of the Asset Privatization Trust.57 The Asset Privatization Trust, which should have been
represented by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, had the authority to file and prosecute the case.
G.R. No. 176528 - People of the Phil v.
Moriel Sancho Y De Pedro The foregoing notwithstanding, this Court can not, at present, readily subscribe to petitioner's insistence that the case
must be dismissed. Significantly, it stands without refute, both in the pleadings as well as in the evidence presented
G.R. No. 176290 - Systra Phil, Inc. v. during the trial and up to the time this case reached the Court, that the issue had been rendered moot with the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue occurrence of a supervening event - the "buy-back" of the bank by its former owner, Leonardo Ty, sometime in October
1993. By such re-acquisition from the Asset Privatization Trust when the case was still pending in the lower court, the
G.R. No. 176632 Formerly G.R. NOS. bank reclaimed its real and actual interest over the unpaid promissory notes; hence, it could rightfully qualify as a
151570-71 - The People of the Phil. v.
Roberto Gingos Y Latabi, et al. "holder"58 thereof under the NIL.

G.R. No. 176633 - PEOPLE OF THE Notably, Section 29 of the NIL defines an accommodation party as a person "who has signed the instrument as maker,
PHILIPPINES v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other
JR. person." As gleaned from the text, an accommodation party is one who meets all the three requisites, viz: (1) he must
be a party to the instrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser; (2) he must not receive value therefor;
G.R. No. 177769 - People of the Phil. v. and (3) he must sign for the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person.59 An accommodation party
Jonas Bustamante lends his name to enable the accommodated party to obtain credit or to raise money; he receives no part of the
consideration for the instrument but assumes liability to the other party/ies thereto.60 The accommodation party is
liable on the instrument to a holder for value even though the holder, at the time of taking the instrument, knew him or
her to be merely an accommodation party, as if the contract was not for accommodation.61

As petitioner acknowledged it to be, the relation between an accommodation party and the accommodated party is one
of principal and surety - the accommodation party being the surety.62 As such, he is deemed an original promisor and
debtor from the beginning;63 he is considered in law as the same party as the debtor in relation to whatever is
adjudged touching the obligation of the latter since their liabilities are interwoven as to be inseparable.64 Although a
contract of suretyship is in essence accessory or collateral to a valid principal obligation, the surety's liability to the
creditor is immediate, primary and absolute; he is directly and equally bound with the principal.65 As an equivalent of a
regular party to the undertaking, a surety becomes liable to the debt and duty of the principal obligor even without
possessing a direct or personal interest in the obligations nor does he receive any benefit therefrom.66

Contrary to petitioner's adamant stand, however, Article 208067 of the Civil Code does not apply in a contract of
suretyship.68 Art. 2047 of the Civil Code states that if a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the
provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code must be observed. Accordingly, Articles 1207 up to
1222 of the Code (on joint and solidary obligations) shall govern the relationship of petitioner with the bank.

The case of Inciong, Jr. v. CA69 is illuminating:

Petitioner also argues that the dismissal of the complaint against Naybe, the principal debtor, and against
Pantanosas, his co-maker, constituted a release of his obligation, especially because the dismissal of the
case against Pantanosas was upon the motion of private respondent itself. He cites as basis for his
argument, Article 2080 of the Civil Code which provides that:

"The guarantors, even though they be solidary, are released from their obligation whenever by come act
of the creditor, they cannot be subrogated to the rights, mortgages, and preferences of the latter."

It is to be noted, however, that petitioner signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a
guarantor. This is patent even from the first sentence of the promissory note which states as follows:

"Ninety one (91) days after date, for value received, I/we, JOINTLY and SEVERALLY promise to pay to the
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS at its office in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines the sum
of FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY (P50,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, together with interest x x x at the
rate of SIXTEEN (16) per cent per annum until fully paid."

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 6/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…
A solidary or joint and several obligation is one in which each debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and
each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation. On the other hand, Article 2047 of the Civil Code
states:

"By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the
principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so.

If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I
of this Book shall be observed. In such a case the contract is called a suretyship." (Italics supplied.)

While a guarantor may bind himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the liability of a guarantor is
different from that of a solidary debtor. Thus, Tolentino explains:

"A guarantor who binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor under the provisions of the second
paragraph does not become a solidary co-debtor to all intents and purposes. There is a difference
between a solidary co-debtor, and a fiador in solidum (surety). The later, outside of the liability he
assumes to pay the debt before the property of the principal debtor has been exhausted, retains all the
other rights, actions and benefits which pertain to him by reason of rights of the fiansa; while a solidary
co-debtor has no other rights than those bestowed upon him in Section 4, Chapter 3, title I, Book IV of
the Civil Code."

Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code states the law on joint and several obligations.
Under Art. 1207 thereof, when there are two or more debtors in one and the same obligation, the
presumption is that obligation is joint so that each of the debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of
the debt. There is a solidarily liability only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so
provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires.

Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three signatories therein are
jointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire
obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection.
(Citations omitted)70

In the instant case, petitioner agreed to be "jointly and severally" liable under the two promissory notes that he co-
signed with Antonio Ang Eng Liong as the principal debtor. This being so, it is completely immaterial if the bank would
opt to proceed only against petitioner or Antonio Ang Eng Liong or both of them since the law confers upon the creditor
the prerogative to choose whether to enforce the entire obligation against any one, some or all of the debtors.
Nonetheless, petitioner, as an accommodation party, may seek reimbursement from Antonio Ang Eng Liong, being the
party accommodated.71

It is plainly mistaken for petitioner to say that just because the bank failed to serve the notice of appeal and appellant's
brief to Antonio Ang Eng Liong, the trial court's judgment, in effect, became final and executory as against the latter
and, thereby, bars his (petitioner's) cross-claims against him: First, although no notice of appeal and appellant's brief
were served to Antonio Ang Eng Liong, he was nonetheless impleaded in the case since his name appeared in the
caption of both the notice and the brief as one of the defendants-appellees;72 Second, despite including in the caption
of the appellee's brief his co-debtor as one of the defendants-appellees, petitioner did not also serve him a copy
thereof;73 Third, in the caption of the Court of Appeals' decision, Antonio Ang Eng Liong was expressly named as one of
the defendants-appellees;74 and Fourth, it was only in his motion for reconsideration from the adverse judgment of the
Court of Appeals that petitioner belatedly chose to serve notice to the counsel of his co-defendant-appellee.75

Likewise, this Court rejects the contention of Antonio Ang Eng Liong, in his "special appearance" through counsel, that
the Court of Appeals, much less this Court, already lacked jurisdiction over his person or over the subject matter
relating to him because he was not a party in CA-G.R. CV No. 53413. Stress must be laid of the fact that he had twice
put himself in default - one, in not filing a pre-trial brief and another, in not filing his answer to petitioner's cross-
claims. As a matter of course, Antonio Ang Eng Liong, being a party declared in default, already waived his right to take
part in the trial proceedings and had to contend with the judgment rendered by the court based on the evidence
presented by the bank and petitioner. Moreover, even without considering these default judgments, Antonio Ang Eng
Liong even categorically admitted having secured a loan totaling P80,000. In his Answer to the complaint, he did not
deny such liability but merely pleaded that the bank "be ordered to submit a more reasonable computation" instead of
collecting excessive interest, penalty charges, and attorney's fees. For failing to tender an issue and in not denying the
material allegations stated in the complaint, a judgment on the pleadings76 would have also been proper since not a
single issue was generated by the Answer he filed.

As the promissory notes were not discharged or impaired through any act or omission of the bank, Sections 119 (d)77
and 12278 of the NIL as well as Art. 124979 of the Civil Code would necessarily find no application. Again, neither was
petitioner's right of reimbursement barred nor was the bank's right to proceed against Antonio Ang Eng Liong expressly
renounced by the omission to serve notice of appeal and appellant's brief to a party already declared in default.

Consequently, in issuing the two promissory notes, petitioner as accommodating party warranted to the holder in due
course that he would pay the same according to its tenor.80 It is no defense to state on his part that he did not receive
any value therefor81 because the phrase "without receiving value therefor" used in Sec. 29 of the NIL means "without
receiving value by virtue of the instrument" and not as it is apparently supposed to mean, "without receiving payment
for lending his name."82 Stated differently, when a third person advances the face value of the note to the
accommodated party at the time of its creation, the consideration for the note as regards its maker is the money
advanced to the accommodated party. It is enough that value was given for the note at the time of its creation.83 As in
the instant case, a sum of money was received by virtue of the notes, hence, it is immaterial so far as the bank is
concerned whether one of the signers, particularly petitioner, has or has not received anything in payment of the use of
his name.84

Under the law, upon the maturity of the note, a surety may pay the debt, demand the collateral security, if there be
any, and dispose of it to his benefit, or, if applicable, subrogate himself in the place of the creditor with the right to
enforce the guaranty against the other signers of the note for the reimbursement of what he is entitled to recover from
them.85 Regrettably, none of these were prudently done by petitioner. When he was first notified by the bank sometime
in 1982 regarding his accountabilities under the promissory notes, he lackadaisically relied on Antonio Ang Eng Liong,
who represented that he would take care of the matter, instead of directly communicating with the bank for its
settlement.86 Thus, petitioner cannot now claim that he was prejudiced by the supposed "extension of time" given by
the bank to his co-debtor.

Furthermore, since the liability of an accommodation party remains not only primary but also unconditional to a holder
for value, 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.87 In Clark v. Sellner,88 this Court held:

x x x The mere delay of the creditor in enforcing the guaranty has not by any means impaired his action
against the defendant. It should not be lost sight of that the defendant's signature on the note is an
assurance to the creditor that the collateral guaranty will remain good, and that otherwise, he, the
defendant, will be personally responsible for the payment.

True, that if the creditor had done any act whereby the guaranty was impaired in its value, or discharged,
such an act would have wholly or partially released the surety; but it must be born in mind that it is a
recognized doctrine in the matter of suretyship that with respect to the surety, the creditor is under no
obligation to display any diligence in the enforcement of his rights as a creditor. His mere inaction
indulgence, passiveness, or delay in proceeding against the principal debtor, or the fact that he did not
enforce the guaranty or apply on the payment of such funds as were available, constitute no defense at
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 7/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…
g y pp y p y
all for the surety, unless the contract expressly requires diligence and promptness on the part of the
creditor, which is not the case in the present action. There is in some decisions a tendency toward
holding that the creditor's laches may discharge the surety, meaning by laches a negligent forbearance.
This theory, however, is not generally accepted and the courts almost universally consider it essentially
inconsistent with the relation of the parties to the note. (21 R.C.L., 1032-1034)89

Neither can petitioner benefit from the alleged "insolvency" of Antonio Ang Eng Liong for want of clear and convincing
evidence proving the same. Assuming it to be true, he also did not exercise diligence in demanding security to protect
himself from the danger thereof in the event that he (petitioner) would eventually be sued by the bank. Further,
whether petitioner may or may not obtain security from Antonio Ang Eng Liong cannot in any manner affect his liability
to the bank; the said remedy is a matter of concern exclusively between themselves as accommodation party and
accommodated party. The fact that petitioner stands only as a surety in relation to Antonio Ang Eng Liong is immaterial
to the claim of the bank and does not a whit diminish nor defeat the rights of the latter as a holder for value. To
sanction his theory is to give unwarranted legal recognition to the patent absurdity of a situation where a co-maker,
when sued on an instrument by a holder in due course and for value, can escape liability by the convenient expedient of
interposing the defense that he is a merely an accommodation party.90

In sum, as regards the other issues and errors alleged in this petition, the Court notes that these were the very same
questions of fact raised on appeal before the Court of Appeals, although at times couched in different terms and
explained more lengthily in the petition. Suffice it to say that the same, being factual, have been satisfactorily passed
upon and considered both by the trial and appellate courts. It is doctrinal that only errors of law and not of fact are
reviewable by this Court in Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Save for the most
cogent and compelling reason, it is not our function under the rule to examine, evaluate or weigh the probative value of
the evidence presented by the parties all over again.91

WHEREFORE, the October 9, 2000 Decision and December 26, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 53413 are AFFIRMED. The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Garcia, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1 Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now
retired Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. concurring.
2 CA Rollo, p. 137.

3 Penned by Judge Romeo D. Marasigan.

4 Records, pp. 1-5.
5 Id. at 500, 563.
6 Id. at 501, 564.
7 Id. at 14-16.
8 Id. at 20-26.

9 Id. at 32-46.
10 Id. at 27-28.
11 Id. at 59-60.
12 Id. at 62.
13 Id. at 64-66.

14 Id. at 72-73.
15 Id. at 84-86.
16 Id. at 86.
17 Id. at 88-90, 144.
18 Id. at 91.
19 Id. at 92-94.

20 Id. at 95-96.
21 Id. at 119-120, 123-127, 140.
22 Id. at 152.
23 Id. at 164-170.
24 TSN, January 18, 1993, p. 2

25 Records, pp. 223-226.

26 Id. at 223-224.
27 Id. at 234-235.
28 Id. at 236-240, 247, 250-275.
29 Id. at 350.
30 Id. at 358, 395, 401-402.

31 Id. at 450, 529-542, 560-561; Exhibit "9" and its sub-markings.

32 Id. at 487.
33 Rollo, p. 182.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 8/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…
34 Records, pp. 490-493.
35 Id. at 492-493.
36 CA Rollo, p. 23.
37 Id. at 27-30.

38 Id. at 79-84.

39 Id. at 83.
40 Id. at 89-133.
41 Id. at 90-91.
42 Id. at 137.
43 Rollo, pp. 33-34.

44 G.R. No. 143666, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 691.

45 Id. at 702-703.
46 PROCLAIMING AND LAUNCHING A PROGRAM FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSITION AND
PRIVATIZATION OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND/OR THEASSETS THEREOF AND
CREATING THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION AND THE ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST.
47Sec. 3, Art. II and Sec. 9, Art. III of Proclamation No. 50. In addition, the term "assets" is defined
under Sec. 2 (1) of the Proclamation as:

1) Assets shall include (i) receivables and other obligations due to government institutions
under credit, lease, indemnity and other agreements together with all collateral security
and other rights (including but not limited to rights in relation to shares of stock in
corporations such as voting rights as well as rights to appoint directors of corporations or
otherwise engage in the management thereof) granted to such institutions by contract or
operation of law to secure or enforce the right of payment of such obligations; (ii) real and
personal property of any kind owned or held by the government institutions, including
shares of stock in corporations, obtained by such government institutions, whether directly
or indirectly, through foreclosure or other means, in settlement of such obligations; (iii)
shares of stock and other investments held by government institutions; and (iv) the
government institutions themselves, whether as parent or subsidiary corporations.
48 Sec. 23 of the Proclamation reads:

SEC. 23. Mechanics of Transfer of Assets. - As soon as practicable, but not later than six
months from the date of the issuance of this Proclamation, the President, acting through
the Committee on Privatization, shall identify such assets of government institutions as
appropriate for privatization and divestment in an appropriate instrument describing such
assets or identifying the loan or other transactions giving rise to the receivables,
obligations and other property constituting assets to be transferred.

The Committee shall, from the list of assets deemed appropriate for divestment, identify
assets to be transferred to the Trust or to be referred to the government institutions in an
appropriate instrument, which upon execution by the Committee shall constitute as the
operative act of transfer or referral of the assets described therein, and the Trust or the
government institution may thereupon proceed with the divestment in accordance with the
provisions of this Proclamation and guidelines issued by the Committee.

Nothing in this Proclamation shall:

(1) Affect the rights of the National Government to pursue the enforcement
of any claim of a government institution in respect of or in relation to any
asset transferred hereunder;

(2) In relation to any debt hereby assigned and transferred to the National
Government of which a government institution is the original creditor, give
rise to any novation or requirement to obtain the consent of the debtor; and

(3) In relation to any share of stock or any interest therein, give rise to any
claim by any other stockholder for enforcement of rights of pre-emption or
of first refusal or other similar rights, the provision of any law to the
contrary notwithstanding.

Where the contractual rights of creditors of any of the government institutions involved
may be affected by the exercise of the Committee or the Trust of the powers granted
herein, the Committee or the Trust shall see to it that such rights are not impaired.
49 Records, pp. 529-533, 543.
50 Id. at 530.

51 Sec. 9, Art. III of Proclamation No. 50.

52 Sec. 1 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7181.

53 Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 7661.
54 Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 7886.
55 Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 8758.
56 Sec. 2, Art. III of Executive Order No. 323, Series of 2000.

57 TSN, January 18, 1993, p. 7.

58 A "Holder" is defined under Sec. 191 of the NIL, as:

"Holder" means the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof.
59 Lim v. Saban, G.R. No. 163720, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 232, 244 and Crisologo-Jose v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 80599, September 15, 1989, 177 SCRA 594, 598.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 9/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…
60Spouses Gardose v. Tarroza, 352 Phil. 797, 807 (1998) citing Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Aruego,
G.R. NOS. L-25836-37, January 31, 1981, 102 SCRA 530, 539-540.

61Lim v. Saban, supra at 244; Garcia v. Llamas, G.R. No. 154127, December 8, 2003, 417 SCRA 292,
304-305; Spouses Gardose v. Tarroza, supra at 807; Travel-On, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
56169, June 26, 1992, 210 SCRA 351, 357; and Ang Tiong v. Ting, 130 Phil. 741, 744 (1968).
62 Garcia v. Llamas, supra at 305; Agro Conglomerates, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 644, 654 -
655 (2000); Spouses Gardose v. Tarroza, supra at 807; Caneda, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81322,
February 5, 1990, 181 SCRA 762, 772; Crisologo-Jose v. Court of Appeals, supra at 598; Prudencio v.
Court of Appeals, 227 Phil. 7, 12 (1986); and Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Aruego, supra at 539.

63 Garcia v. Llamas, supra at 305.

64Trade & Investment Development Corp. v. Roblett Industrial Construction Corp., G.R. No. 139290,
November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 510, 531.
65 International Finance Corporation v. Imperial Textile Mills, Inc., G.R. No. 160324, November 15, 2005,
475 SCRA 149, 160; Trade & Investment Development Corp. v. Roblett Industrial Construction Corp., id.
at 531; Garcia v. Llamas, supra at 305; Agro Conglomerates, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 655; and
Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Aruego, supra at 540.
66 International Finance Corporation v. Imperial Textile Mills, Inc., id. at 160-161 and Trade &
Investment Development Corp. v. Roblett Industrial Construction Corp., id. at 531.

67 Art. 2080 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 2080. The guarantors, even though they be solidary, are released from their obligation whenever by
some act of the creditor they cannot be subrogated to the rights, mortgages, and preferences of the
latter.

68 E. Zobel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 352 Phil. 608, 618 (1998); Inciong, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 327
Phil. 364, 372-373 (1996); and Bicol Savings & Loan Association v. Guinhawa, G.R. No. 62415, August
20, 1990, 188 SCRA 642, 647.
69 327 Phil. 364 (1996).
70 Id. at 372-374.
71 Lim v. Saban, supra at 244; Agro Conglomerates, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 654; and Caneda,
Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 772.
72 CA Rollo, p. 21.

73 Id. at 40, 75.

74 Id. at 79.
75 Id. at 133.
76 Sec. 1, Rule 34 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure states:

Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. - Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or

otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court may,
on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts
alleged in the complaint shall always be proved.
77 Sec. 119 of the NIL provides:

SECTION 119. Instrument; how discharged. - A negotiable instrument is discharged:

(a.) By payment in due course by or on behalf of the principal debtor;

(b.) By payment in due course by the party accommodated, where the instrument is made
or accepted for his accommodation;

(c.) By the intentional cancellation thereof by the holder;

(d.) By any other act which will discharge a simple contract for the payment of
money;

(e.) When the principal debtor becomes the holder of the instrument at or after maturity in
his own right. (Emphasis ours)

78 Sec. 122 of the NIL states:

SECTION 122. Renunciation by holder. - The holder may expressly renounce his rights
against any party to the instrument before, at, or after its maturity. An absolute and
unconditional renunciation of his rights against the principal debtor made at or after the
maturity of the instrument discharges the instrument. But a renunciation does not affect
the rights of a holder in due course without notice. A renunciation must be in writing unless
the instrument is delivered up to the person primarily liable thereon.

79 Art. 1249 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if
it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the
Philippines.

The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile
documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or
when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. (Emphasis ours)
80 Travel-On, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 357.
81Caneda, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 772; Crisologo-Jose v. Court of Appeals, supra at 598; and
Ang Tiong v. Ting, supra at 744.

82 Clark v. Sellner, 42 Phil. 384, 386 (1921).

83 Caneda, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 772.

84 Clark v. Sellner, supra at 386.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 10/11
1/5/2020 G.R. No. 146511 - TOMAS ANG v. ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 2007 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CH…
85 Id. at 386-387.
86 TSN, February 21, 1995, p. 27 and TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 15.
87 Prudencio v. Court of Appeals, supra at 12-13.

88 42 Phil. 384 (1921).

89 Id. at 387-388.
90 Ang Tiong v. Ting, supra at 744.
91Batangas State University v. Bonifacio, G.R. No. 167762, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 142, 147-148
and Local Superior of the Servants of Charity (Guanellians), Inc. v. Jody King Construction &
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 141715, October 12, 2005, 472 SCRA 445, 451.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

 Copyright © 1998 - 2020 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1034 11/11