Bautista Vs Auto Plus Traders

 

CLAUDE P. BAUTISTA vs vs. AUTO PLUS TRADERS, INCORPORATED and COURT OF APPEALS 

G.R. No. 166405 August 6, 2008

FACTS:

Bautista, in his capacity as President of Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation, purchased various spare parts from Auto Plus Traders, T raders, Inc. (Auto Plus) and issued 2 post-dated check checkss amounting to P151,200.00 and P97,500.00 to cover his purchases. The checks were subsequently dishonored. Auto Plus then executed an affidavit-complaint for violation of BP. Blg. 22 against Bautista. Consequently, 2Informations for violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed with the Municipal Trial Court inCities (MTCC) of Davao against Bautista. The first decision of the MTCC directed Cruiser Bus Line[s] and Transport Corporation, through Bautista to pay the complainant the value of the twochecks plus interests and other fees such as filing fees. It was modified, and Bautista himself was directed to pay for the liabilities to Auto Plus. The CA affirmed the decision. Bautista asserts that BP Blg. 22 merely pertains to the criminal liability of the accused and that the corporation, which has a separate personality from its officers, is solely liable for the value of the two checks. Auto Plus counters that Bautista should be held personally liable for both checks, alleging that Bautista issued two post-dated checks: a personal check in his and a corporation check under the account of Cruiser Bus Lines. According to Autoplus, Bautista, by issuing his check to cover the obligation of the corporation, became an accommodation party. ISSUE:   W/N an accommodation party, making him personally and civilly liable to the Auto Plus for Bautista the valuebecame of the two checks. HELD:

 No. Contrary to Autoplus's Autoplus's contentions, contentions, Bautista Bautista canno cannott be considered considered liable liable as an an accomm accommodation odation party. party. Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law defines an 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." As gleaned from the text, an accommodation  party is one who meets meets all the the three requisites: 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. An accommodation  party lends his name name to enable enable the accomm accommodated odated party party to obtain credit or to raise money; he he receives receives no  part of the consideration consideration for the instrument but but assumes assumes liability to the other other party/ies party/ies thereto. The first two elementsof are present here; however there insufficient evidence in the Check instantNo. case58832, to show the presence the third requisite. All that theisevidence shows is that presented Bautista signed which is drawn against his personal account. The said check, dated December 15, 2000, corresponds to the value of 24 sets of tires received by Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation on August 29, 2000. There is no showing of when Bautista issued the check and in what capacity. In the absence of concrete evidence it cannot just be assumed that Bautista intended to lend his name to the corporation. Hence, Bautista cannot be considered as an accommodation party. Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation, however, remains liable for the checks especially since there is no evidence that the debts covered by the subject checks have been paid.