Scribd
Upload
62 views1 page

TOMAS ANG V Associated Bank

1) Associated Bank filed a collection suit against Antonio Ang Eng Liong and Tomas Ang for failing to pay two promissory notes totaling P539,638.96. 2) Tomas Ang claimed he did not receive any consideration for signing the notes and merely lent his name as an accommodation party. 3) The court ruled that as an accommodation party, Tomas Ang is still liable to the bank even without receiving value, as his purpose was to lend his name to Antonio Ang Eng Liong. The bank can hold the accommodation party liable regardless of whether he received payment for use of his name.

Uploaded by

Alexir Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views1 page

TOMAS ANG V Associated Bank

1) Associated Bank filed a collection suit against Antonio Ang Eng Liong and Tomas Ang for failing to pay two promissory notes totaling P539,638.96. 2) Tomas Ang claimed he did not receive any consideration for signing the notes and merely lent his name as an accommodation party. 3) The court ruled that as an accommodation party, Tomas Ang is still liable to the bank even without receiving value, as his purpose was to lend his name to Antonio Ang Eng Liong. The bank can hold the accommodation party liable regardless of whether he received payment for use of his name.

Uploaded by

Alexir Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TOMAS ANG v.

 ASSOCIATED BANK AND ANTONIO ANG ENG LIONG


G.R. No. 146511, September 5, 2007
AZCUNA, J.

FACTS:
Associated Bank filed a collection suit against Antonio Ang Eng Liong (Liong)(principal
debtor) and petitioner Tomas Ang (Ang)(co-maker) for the 2 promissory notes 
On October 3 and 9, 1978, Liong and Ang obtained a loan of P50,000 and P30,000 evidenced
by promissory note payable, jointly and severally, on January 31, 1979 and December 8, 1978,
but despite repeated demands for payment they failed to settle their obligations totaling
to P539,638.96 as of July 31, 1990
Liong only admitted to have secured a loan amounting to P80,000 while Tomas Ang claimed
that the bank is not the real party in interest as it is not the a holder for value or a holder in due
course; as 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
Liong was ordered to pay the principal amount of P80,000 plus 14% interest per annum and 2%
service charge per annum while it ruled in favor of Ang and against the bank.
Ruling on Ang was reversed by the CA who ordered Ang to pay the bank.
ISSUE: Is Ang liable as accomodation party even without consideration?
HELD: Yes
Accommodation party as a person "who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer,
acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name
to some other person." An accommodation party requires that (1) he must be a party to the
instrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser; (2) he must not receive value
therefor; and (3) he must sign for the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person
However, 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 as the
bank may hold the accommodation party liable.

You might also like