CASE #07 (by: G. Remo) EUSEBIO EUSEBIO GONZALES GONZALES vs. PHILIPPINE PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL AN IN!ERNA! IN!ERNA!IONAL IONAL BAN" ENA OCAMPO $%& ROBER!O NOCEA GR No. '0*7 +EBRUAR, - 0'' ELASCO /R. J OC!RINE: A% $ommo&$12o% 3$41y 2s $ 3e4so% 56o 6$s s2%e& 16e 2%s148me%1 $s m$9e4 &4$5e4 $e31o4 o4 2%&o4se4 5216o81 4ee2v2% v$8e 16e4e;o4 $%& ;o4 16e 3843ose o; e%&2% 62s %$me 1o some o16e4 3e4so%. +AC!S:
On October 30, 1995, Gonzales and his wife obtained a loan for PhP 500,000. Subsequently, on ece!b ece!ber er "#, 1995 1995 and $anuar $anuary y 3, 1999, 1999, the s%ous s%ouses es Panlili anlilio o and and Gonzal Gonzales es obtain obtained ed two addition additional al loans loans fro! fro! P&'( in the a!ounts a!ounts of PhP 1,000,000 1,000,000 and PhP 300,000, 300,000, res%ecti)e res%ecti)ely ly.. These three loans amounting to PhP 1,800,000 were covered by three promissory notes. *o secure secure the loans, loans, a real real estate estate !ort+a+e !ort+a+e -/ o)er a %arcel %arcel of was eecuted eecuted by specifed, among others, Gonzales and the s%ouses Panlilio. 2otably, the promissory notes specifed, the solidary liability o Gonzales and the spouses Panlilio or the payment o the loans !owever, it was the spouses Panlilio who received the loan proceeds o PhP 1,800,000
*he !onthly interest interest dues of the loans were %aid by the s%ouses Panlilio Panlilio throu+h the auto!atic debitin+ of their account with P&'(. (ut the s%ouses Panlilio, fro! the !onth of $uly 199, defaulted in the %ay!ent of the %eriodic interest dues fro! their P&'( account which a%%arently was not !ainta !aintaine ined d with with enou+ enou+h h de%os de%osits its.. P&'( P&'( alle+e alle+edly dly calle called d the attent attention ion of Gonzal Gonzales es re+ardin+ the $uly 199 defaults and the subsequent accu!ulatin+ %eriodic interest dues which were left still left un%aid.
Gonzales issued a chec4 dated Se%te!ber 30, 199 in fa)or of -ene nson for PhP "50,000 drawn a+ainst the credit line &O678. 6owe)er, on October 13, 199, u%on %resent!ent for %ay!ent by nson of said chec4, it was dishonored by P&'( due to the ter!ination by P&'( of the credit line under &O678 on October , 199 for the un%aid %eriodic interest dues fro! the loans of Gonzales and the s%ouses Panlilio. P&'( li4ewise froze the :& account of Gonzales.
On $anuary ", 1999, Gonzales, throu+h counsel, wrote P&'( insistin+ that the chec4 he issued had been fully funded, and de!anded the return of the %roceeds of his :& as well as da!a+es for the un;ust dishonor dishonor of the chec4. P&'(s refusal refusal to heed his de!ands co!%elled co!%elled Gonzales to
ISSUES: '.) <6e16e4 E8seb2o Go%=$es $s $% $ommo&$12o% 3$41y 2s so2&$42y 2$be 5216 S3o8ses ;o4 16e 164ee 34om2sso4y %o1es 2ss8e& 1o PCIB> .) <6e16e4 21 5$s 34o3e4 ;o4 PCIB 1o &2s6o%o4 16e 6e9 2ss8e& by Go%=$es $$2%s1 16e 4e&21 2%e 8%&e4 16e COHLA 5216o81 34o3e4 %o12e>
HEL: '.) ,ES. Clearly, Gonzales is liable for the loans covered by the above promissory notes. First , Gonzales admitted that he is an accommodation party which PCIB did not dispute. In his testimony, Gonzales admitted that he merely accommodated the spouses Panlilio at the suggestion of Ocampo, who was then handling his accounts, in order to facilitate the fast release of the loan.
oreover, the first note for PhP !"",""" was signed by Gonzales and his wife as borrowers, while the two subse#uent notes showed the spouses Panlilio sign as borrowers with Gonzales. It is, thus, evident that Gonzales signed, as borrower, the promissory notes covering the PhP $,%"",""" loan despite not receiving any of the proceeds. &he fact that the loans were underta'en by Gonzales when he signed as borrower or co(borrower for the benefit of the spouses Panlilio as shown by the fact that the proceeds went to the spouses Panlilio who were servicing or paying the monthly dues is beside the point. )or signing as borrower and co(borrower on the promissory notes with the proceeds of the loans going to the spouses Panlilio, Gonzales has e*tended an accommodation to said spouses. Third , as an accommodation party, Gonzales is solidarily liable with the spouses Panlilio for the loans. In Ang v. Associated Bank , #uoting the definition of an accommodation party under +ection - of the egotiable Instruments /aw, the Court cited that $% $ommo&$12o% 3$41y 2s $ 3e4so% 56o 6$s s2%e& 16e 2%s148me%1 $s m$9e4 &4$5e4 $e31o4 o4 2%&o4se4 5216o81 4ee2v2% v$8e 16e4e;o4 $%& ;o4 16e 3843ose o; e%&2% 62s %$me 1o some o16e4 3e4so%.
.) NO. PCIBs negligence in not giving Gonzalesan accommodation partyproper notice relative to the delin#uencies in the PhP $,%"",""" loan covered by the three promissory notes, the un0ust termination, revocation, or suspension of the credit line under the CO1/2 from PCIBs gross negligence in not honoring its obligation to give prior notice to Gonzales about such termination and in not informing Gonzales of the fact of such termination, treating Gonzales account as closed and dishonoring his PhP !",""" chec', was certainly a rec'less act by PCIB. &his resulted in the actual in0ury of PhP !",""" to Gonzales whose )C3 account was frozen and had to loo' elsewhere for money to pay 4nson. +24s1. &here was no proper notice to Gonzales of the default and delin#uency of the PhP $,%"",""" loan. It must be borne in mind that while solidarily liable with the spouses Panlilio on the PhP $,%"",""" loan covered by the three promissory notes, Gonzales is only an accommodation party and as such only lent his name and credit to the spouses Panlilio. 5hile not e*onerating his solidary liability, Gonzales has a right to be properly apprised of the default or delin#uency of the loan precisely because he is a co( signatory of the promissory notes and of his solidary liability.
Seo%&. PCIB was grossly negligent in not giving prior notice to Gonzales about its course of action to suspend, terminate, or revo'e the credit line, thereb y violating the clear stipulation in the CO1/2. !624&. &here is no dispute on the right of PCIB to suspend, terminate, or revo'e the CO1/2 under the cross default provisions of both the promissory notes and the CO1/2. 1owever, these cross default provisions do not confer absolute unilateral right to PCIB, as they are #ualified by the other stipulations in the contracts or specific circumstances, li'e in the instant case of an accommodation party.
