Title
Metropol Ficing and Investment Corp. vs. Sambok Motors Co., Ltd.
Case
G.R. No. L-39641
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1983
Dr. Villaruel defaulted on a promissory note indorsed "with recourse" by Sambok Motors to Metropol. Court ruled Sambok liable as general indorser after dishonor, affirming primary liability despite maker's death.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 91958)

Facts:

  • Creation and Terms of the Note
  • On April 15, 1969, Dr. Javier Villaruel executed a promissory note in favor of Ng Sambok Sons Motors Co., Ltd. for ₱15,939.00, payable in twelve equal monthly installments beginning May 18, 1969, with interest at 1% per month.
  • The note contained an acceleration clause: upon non-payment of any installment, the entire unpaid principal became due and payable, plus an additional interest equal to 25% of the total amount then due.
  • Indorsement, Default, and Proceedings
  • On the same date, Sambok Motors Company (Bacolod), sister company under the same management, negotiated and indorsed the note to Metropol Financing & Investment Corporation with the following indorsement:
“Pay to the order of Metropol Bacolod Financing & Investment Corporation with recourse. Notice of Demand; Dishonor; Protest; and Presentment are hereby waived. SAMBOK MOTORS CO. (BACOLOD) By: RODOLFO G. NONILLO Asst. General Manager”
  • Dr. Villaruel defaulted; the note was presented for payment on October 30, 1969, and dishonored. Plaintiff notified Sambok, which failed to pay.
  • On November 26, 1969, plaintiff filed a complaint for collection before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch I. Sambok admitted liability but argued it could not be obliged to pay until Dr. Villaruel was declared insolvent.
  • During pendency, Dr. Villaruel died; on October 24, 1972, the court dismissed the case against him under Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
  • On summary judgment, the trial court on September 12, 1973 ordered Sambok to pay:
    • ₱15,939.00 plus legal interest from October 30, 1969;
    • 25% of ₱15,939.00 plus interest thereon;
    • costs of suit.
  • Sambok appealed, contending that its “with recourse” indorsement made it only a qualified indorser, secondarily liable and not subject to immediate suit.

Issues:

  • Whether the indorsement “with recourse” by Sambok Motors Company constitutes a qualified indorsement limiting its liability to statutory warranties under Section 65 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
  • Whether, as a qualified indorser, Sambok can be sued only after exhausting remedies against the maker or after a declaration of the maker’s insolvency.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.