This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-09-05 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| 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 therefor[81] 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] | |||||