Metropol (Bacolod) Financing and Investment Corp v. Sambok Motors Company [G.R. No. L-39641. February 28, 1983]

30 Jul


Appellant Sambok added the words “with recourse” in the indorsement of a note. He argued that the note contemplates a qualified indorsement.



Whether or not the contention of Sambok is meritorious.



NO. “Recourse” means resort to a person who is secondarily liable after the default of the person who is primarily liable.  Appellant, by indorsing the note “with recourse” does not make itself a qualified indorser but a general indorser who is secondarily liable. The effect of such indorsement is that the note was indorsed without qualification. A person who indorses without qualification engages that on due presentment, the note shall be accepted or paid, or both as the case may be, and that if it be dishonored, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder.



Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: