48 PHIL 207



Maza and Macenas executed a total of five promissory notes.  These were not paid at maturity.  And to recover the amounts stated on the face of the promissory  notes,  PNB  initiated  an  action  against  the  two.  The  special defense  posed  by  the  two  is  that  the  promissory  notes  were  delivered  to
them  in  blank  by  a  certain  Enchaus  and  were  made  to  sign  the  notes  so that the latter could secure a loan from the bank.  They also alleged that they never negotiated the notes with the bank nor have they received any value  thereof.    They  also  prayed  that  Enchaus  be  impleaded  in  the
complaint  but  such  was  denied.    The  trial  court  then  held in  favor  of  the bank.


The  defendants  attested  to  the  genuineness  of  the  instruments  sued  on.  Neither  did  they  point  out  any  mistake  in  regard  to  the  amount  and interest  that  the  lower  court  sentenced  them  to  pay.    Given  such,  the defendants are liable.  They appear as the makers of the promissory notes
and as such, they must keep their engagement and pay as promised. 

And assuming that they are accommodation parties, the defendants having signed the instruments without receiving value thereof, for the purpose of lending their names to some other person, are still liable for the promissory notes.  The law now is such that an accommodation party cannot claim no benefit  as  such,  but  he  is  liable  according  to  the  face  of  his  undertaking, the same as he himself financially interest in the transaction.  It is also no defense to say that they didn't receive the value of the notes.  To fasten
liability however to an accommodation maker, it is not necessary that any consideration should move to him.  The accommodation which supports the promise  of  the  accommodation  maker  is  that  parted  with  by  the  person taking the note and received by the person accommodated.