CANEDA V. CA- Accommodation Party

181 SCRA 762

FACTS:

Gueson for value received, executed a promissory note in favor of Caneda, promising  to  pay  monthly  installments  with  interest  per  annum.    That  to secure the obligation, he executed a chattel mortgage and used a Toyota Jiffy  jeep  as  collateral;  that  it  is  expressly  provided  for  in the  promissory note  that  in  case  of  default  in  any  installment  would  deem  that  whole obligation demandable.  This promissory note was later assigned to FNCB.  Gueson  then  defaulted  in  his  obligation  and  had  an  outstanding  balance.  Despite demands on Gueson, he failed and refused to pay.  This prompted FNCB  to  file  an  action  for  replevin  and  sum  of  money,  and  in  the alternative,  prayed  for  the  payment  of  the  outstanding  balance  plus interest.   

Gueson in his answer alleged that he was just an accommodation party in favor of Caneda.   This was denied by Caneda.   

The  trial  court  held  that  Gueson  was  indeed  an  accommodation  party  in favor of Caneda; that there was a  novation in  the form of substitution of debtors  when  Caneda  executed  the  undertaking  assuming  the  liability  of Gueson in favor of FNCB; that the phrase “with recourse to Gueson in case of  default”  found  in  the  undertaking  was  inserted  only  after  Caneda  and FNCB  had  already  signed  the  undertaking  and  without  the  knowledge  of Gueson and that Caneda was in bad faith when it tried to evade payment of a justly-secured legal obligation.  

HELD:

As  to  the  merits  of  the  case,  it  is  undisputed  that  Gueson  executed  a promissory  note  in  favor  of  Caneda,  secured  by  a  chattel  mortgage  on  a Toyota Jiffy jeep as collateral; which promissory note and chattel mortgage was assigned by Caneda in favor of FNCB evidently to secure his obligation with  said  company,  with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  Gueson.    The records  also  clearly  established  that  FNCB  tried  to  collect  from  Gueson, Caneda  consented  and  affixed  his  signature  in  an  undertaking  thereby acknowledging indebtedness in favor of FNCB.   

As  between  Gueson  and  Caneda,  it  is  obvious  that  whether  private agreement between them is binding on them alone and not on FNCB whose only concern in the whole transaction is the repayment of the loan it has extended.

As regards FNCB, Caneda is the real debtor of the company and Gueson is only  an  accommodation  party  of  Caneda.    The  trial  court  held  that  there was novation as there was substitution of debtors when Caneda executed the  undertaking.    But  the  CA  is  correct,  by  saying  that  there  was  no
novation.    Novation  is  never  presumed.    It  must  be  explicitly  stated.  Caneda  merely  confirmed  that  he  was  the  real  debtor  of  FNCB  in  the undertaking signed, while Gueson merely accommodated Caneda in signing the promissory note and executing the chattel mortgage.  Thus, it has been
ruled that one who signs as maker, drawer, acceptor or indorser, without receiving value therefore, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other   person   is   liable   to   the   instrument   to   a   holder   for   value, notwithstanding  the  fact  that  such  holder  at  the  time  of  the  taking  the instrument  knew  him  to  be  only  an  accommodation  party.    Nonetheless, after  paying  the  holder,  he  is  entitled  to  obtain  reimbursement  from  the party accommodated.

Likewise, it is no defense to state that Caneda and Gueson didn't receive any  value  for  the  promissory  note  executed,  both   claiming  to  be accommodation  parties.    A  third  person  advances  the  face  value  of  the note  to  the  accommodated  party  at  the  time  of  the  creation  of  the  note,
the consideration for the note as regards the maker is the money advanced to the accommodated party, and it cannot be said that the note is lacking in  consideration  as  to  the  accommodating  party  just  becaue  he  himself received some of the money.  It is enough that the value given for the note
at the time of its creation.