RSS

Prudencio v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-34539. July 14, 1986]

30 Jul

FACTS

Petitioners were induced to sign a promissory note after a Deed of Assignment was executed by the Construction Company in favor of PNB. Later, PNB approved release of payments in contravention of the tenor of the said deed.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not PNB may be considered as a holder in due course after fraudulent inducement.

 

RULING

NO. PNB is not a holder in due course. Not only was PNB an immediate party or in privy to the promissory note – that is, it had dealt directly with the petitioners knowing fully well that the latter only signed as accommodation – but petitioners were made to believe and on that belief entered into the agreement that no other conditions would alter the terms thereof and yet, PNB altered the same.

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: