NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW DIGEST K. RELOJO | 2DTOMAS ANG vs. ASSOCIATED BANK AND ANTONIO ANG ENG LIONG 532 SCRA 244Sec. 29 Liability of AccommodationPartyFACTS:In 1979, Antonio and Tomas obtained a 50k loan, and a 30k loan, both evidenced by separate promissory notes payable solidarily.The loan was to earn 1! interest rate per ann"m, #! service char$e per ann"m, 1! penalty char$e per month %rom d"e date "ntil %"llypaid, and attorney&s %ees e'"ivalent to #0!o% the o"tstandin$obli$ation.(espite repeated demands, Antonio and Tomas %ailed topay. )y 1990, the total indebtedness was *539,+3,.9+. Associate )ank then %iled a collection s"it a$ainst Antonio An$ -n$ .ion$ /principal debtor0 and petitioner Tomas An$ /co1maker0 %or the two /#0 promissory notes.Antonio admitted to have sec"red a,0k loan b"t pleaded %or a more reasonable comp"tation. 2e alle$es the bank was collectin$ e3cessive interest, penalty char$es, and attorney&s %ees despite knowled$e that his b"siness was destroyed by %ire, hence, he had no so"rce o% income %or several years.Tomas in!"#$s!% &' &! ('n) is n$ &! "!'* #'"+ in in!"!s 's i is n$ &! &$*%!" $,&! #"$-iss$"+ n$!s. -/0& *!ss' &$*%!" ,$" v'*/! $" ' &$*%!"in %/! 0$/"s!. T&! ('n) )n!1 &' &! %i% n$ "!0!iv! 'n+ v'*/'(*! 0$nsi%!"'i$n ,$" ',,i2in3 &is si3n'/"!s (/ -!"!*+ *!n &is n'-! 's 'n '00$--$%'i$n #'"+. The note was completed in e3cess o% or contrary to the a"thority $iven by him, beca"se he a$reed to si$n on Antonio4s representation that he wo"ld onlyborrow 30k. 2e si$ned the #nd note on the %ra"d"lent claim o% Antonio that his%irst loan did not p"sh thro"$h. Antonio was $ivene3tension witho"t Tomas4 consent and knowled$e. The waiver o% presentment %or payment and notice o% dishonorin the notes was a$ainst p"blic policy. The notes had been impaired beca"sethey weren4t presented and demands were made years a%ter they %ell d"e whenAntonio co"ld no lon$er pay themAssociated Bank 0$/n!"!% &' i is &! "!'* #'"+ in in!"!s 'n% is &! &$*%!" sin0! &! Ass$0i'!% B'n)in3 C$"#$"'i$n 'n% Ass$0i'!% Cii4!ns B'n) '"! is #"!%!0!ss$"s5in5in!"!s.WON T$-'s "!0!iv!% -$n!+ in 0$nsi%!"'i$n $, &! 1$ 627 *$'ns 'n% &' s/0& 1's )n$1n $ &! ('n) is i--'!"i'* (!0'/s! (!in3 'n'00$--$%'i$n -')!". &! is 0$nsi%!"!% 's ' s$*i%'"+ %!($" 1&$ is #"i-'"i*+ *i'(*!. The bank retorted that the notes were complete at the time o% the delivery,and even ass"min$ they weren4t complete, the 5I. provides that the bank has the prima facie a"thority to complete it. 6oreover, it is pres"med that Tomas who si$ned as a maker si$ned the doc"ment with %"ll knowled$e o% its content. The bank also noted that Tomas, a prominent b"sinessman in (avao 7ity, was already in estoppelsince despite receipt o% several demand letters there was not a sin$le protest raised. The bank likewise denied Tomas4 claims o% e3tensions $ranted, and new stip"lations imposed. .astly, the bank claims that Tomas4 e3press waiver was act"ally not necessary beca"sehe was a solidary debtor so he was absol"tely re'"iredto pay.8n the basis o% the evidence presented e3 parte, the trial court ordered Antonio to pay ,0k pl"s 1! interest and #! interest. The overd"e penalty char$e and attorney&s %ees were, however, red"ced %or bein$ e3cessive.9hen the co"rt set the pre1trial con%erence between the bankand Tomas, Tomas raised lacko% :"risdiction in view o% the %inalityo% the previo"s decision. 2e claims to have been released %rom his obli$ationas a solidary $"arantor and accommodation party beca"se, bythe bank&s actions, he is nowprecl"ded %rom assertin$ his cross1claim a$ainst Antonio. Tomas4 motion to dismiss and 6; was denied so he %iled a petition %or certiorari.In the certiorari petition, the 7A ann"lled the portion o% the ordero% the trial co"rt settin$ e3 parte presentation o% evidence a$ainst Antonio, the decision based on s"ch evidence, andthe writ o% e3ec"tion. Trial ens"ed between the bank and Tomas. Tomas %ileda 6otion %or *rod"ction o% -vidence /to reprod"ce the notes, to see Antonio4s ta3 declarations, etc0 which was denied.Tomas o%%ered in evidence a copy o% the Tr"st A$reementbetween the ;ep"blic o% the *hilippines and the Asset *rivati'n% n$ 's i is '##'"!n*+ s/##$s!% $ -!'n. >1i&$/ "!0!ivin3 #'+-!n ,$" *!n%in3 &is n'-!.> It is eno"$h that val"ewas $iven %or the note at the time o%its creation, and inthis case Antonio received money by virt"e o% the notes.The liability o% an accommodation party remains n$ $n*+ primary (/ '*s$ unconditional to a holder %or val"e,even i% the accommodated party receives an e3tension witho"t the consent o% the accommodation party, the latter is still liable %or the whole obli$ation ands"ch e3tension doesnot release him beca"se as %ar as a holder %or val"e is concerned, he is a solidary co 1debtor. As s"rety, he sho"ld have paid the debt instead o% relyin$ on Antonio4s representations that he wo"ld take care o% it.Ass"min$ Antoniowas insolvent, Tomas did not e3ercise dili$enceto protect himsel% %rom the dan$er thereo% in the event that he wo"ld event"ally be s"ed by the bank. A"rther, thissaid remedy is a matter o% concern e3cl"sively between an accommodation party and accommodated party, irrelevant tothe bank4s claims a$ainst them as solidary debtors