G.R. No. L-16968 - Philippine National Bank vs. Concepcion Mining Co., Inc.

The case involves a promissory note executed on March 12, 1954, payable "NINETY DAYS after date" by the undersigned makers, addressed to the Philippine National Bank.
The promissory note includes an attorney’s fees clause requiring payment of 10% of the note’s amount (with a minimum of P100.00) in the event of collection through an attorney-at-law.
The note contains a waiver of demand and dishonor, and it reserves the holder’s right of recourse against endorsers.

Plaintiff/Appellee: Philippine National Bank, seeking recovery of the face value of the promissory note plus interest and attorney’s fees.
Defendants/Appellants:

Don Vicente L. Legarda, co-maker, whose estate was argued to be relevant due to his death on February 24, 1946.

The action was initiated by Philippine National Bank to recover the note’s amount along with accrued interest (up to specified dates) and additional charges, including a daily interest penalty.
The trial court imposed a judgment forcing the defendants to pay jointly and severally the determined amount, including attorney’s fees and costs.
The defendants, in their answer, asserted that the deceased co-maker, Vicente L. Legarda, should have been joined as a party-defendant as his estate was under judicial determination in separate proceedings.
The lower court ruled that the inclusion of the deceased was unnecessary and immaterial under Article 1216 of the Civil Code and section 17(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
Both a motion to reconsider and a subsequent petition for relief (to suspend the effects of judgment on grounds of non-joinder of Vicente L. Legarda) were denied.

The names of the defendants, especially Jose S. Sarte, were either missing or misrepresented in the appellate record.
The title of the complaint in the appellate record did not list Jose S. Sarte, despite there being two named defendants in the original complaint.
The copy of the promissory note in the record omitted the name of co-maker Jose S. Sarte, which conflicted with the brief of the appellee that correctly identified him as a co-maker.

The defendant’s attorney, identified as Atty. Jose S. Sarte, was held responsible for ensuring the correctness of the appellate record, particularly regarding the proper identification of parties and makers.

Whether it was necessary to include the deceased co-maker, Vicente L. Legarda, as a party-defendant when his estate was already the subject of separate judicial determination.
The impact of such inclusion on the liability of the surviving makers regarding the promissory note.

Whether the words “I promise to pay” in the promissory note, when signed by multiple persons, automatically create joint and several liability per section 17(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
How Article 1216 of the Civil Code supports the plaintiff’s right to recover from any one or more of the debtors.

The issue concerning the omission or misrepresentation of the name of Jose S. Sarte in the appellate record, which could mislead the court regarding the parties involved.
Whether such discrepancies affect the validity of the judgment or require additional proceedings.