Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    Metropol Financing v. Sambok Digest DKGS

    Uploaded by

    Diazmean Sotelo
    Sambok Motors Co. endorsed a promissory note in favor of Metropol Financing & Investment Corp. "with recourse", making Sambok liable if the maker defaulted. When the maker defaulted, Metropol demanded payment from Sambok, which refused. The court ruled Sambok was a general endorser, not a qualified endorser, because it endorsed the note "with recourse" rather than "without recourse". As a general endorser, Sambok was liable for payment upon the maker's default. The court ordered Sambok to pay the amount due on the promissory note.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Metropol Financing v. Sambok Digest DKGS

    Uploaded by

    Diazmean Sotelo
    142 views2 pages
    Sambok Motors Co. endorsed a promissory note in favor of Metropol Financing & Investment Corp. "with recourse", making Sambok liable if the maker defaulted. When the maker defaulted, Metropol demanded payment from Sambok, which refused. The court ruled Sambok was a general endorser, not a qualified endorser, because it endorsed the note "with recourse" rather than "without recourse". As a general endorser, Sambok was liable for payment upon the maker's default. The court ordered Sambok to pay the amount due on the promissory note.

    Original Title

    METROPOL FINANCING V. SAMBOK DIGEST DKGS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sambok Motors Co. endorsed a promissory note in favor of Metropol Financing & Investment Corp. "with recourse", making Sambok liable if the maker defaulted. When the maker defaulted, Metropol demanded payment from Sambok, which refused. The court ruled Sambok was a general endorser, not a qualified endorser, because it endorsed the note "with recourse" rather than "without recourse". As a general endorser, Sambok was liable for payment upon the maker's default. The court ordered Sambok to pay the amount due on the promissory note.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    142 views2 pages

    Metropol Financing v. Sambok Digest DKGS

    Uploaded by

    Diazmean Sotelo
    Sambok Motors Co. endorsed a promissory note in favor of Metropol Financing & Investment Corp. "with recourse", making Sambok liable if the maker defaulted. When the maker defaulted, Metropol demanded payment from Sambok, which refused. The court ruled Sambok was a general endorser, not a qualified endorser, because it endorsed the note "with recourse" rather than "without recourse". As a general endorser, Sambok was liable for payment upon the maker's default. The court ordered Sambok to pay the amount due on the promissory note.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    DIAZMEAN KYLA G.

    SOTELO
    2020

    Metropol Financing & Investment Corp. v. Sambok Motors Co. & Ng Sambok Sons
    Motors Co.
    Topic: Kinds of indorsement
    Instrument: PN, OI (15,939 pesos, 12 installments + 1% interest per month w/ acceleration
    clause = 25%)
    Maker: Dr. Villaruel
    Payee: Ng Sambok Sons
    Sambok Motors (sister company)--- Metropol Financing
    (with recourse)
    Facts:
     Dr. Villaruel executed a PN in favor of Ng Sambok Sons Motor Corp. for the amount of
    15, 939 in 12 installments + 1% per month and an acceleration clause which provides for
    a 25% interest
     On the same date, Sambok Motors. Co., sister company of Ng Sambok Sons indorsed the
    note to Metropol Financing & Investment Corp.
     The instrument is worded as “Pay to the order of Metropol Financing & Investment Corp.
    with recourse. Notice of Demand, Presentment, Dishonor and Protest are all waived.”
     Dr. Villaurel defaulted on Oct. 30, 1969 when Metropol presented it for payment.
    Metropol then notified Sambok of the dishonor and demanded payment for the same.
     Sambok failed to pay which lead to a filing of a complaint on Nov. 1969 before CFI,
    Iloilo Branch I.
     Sambok didn’t deny liability but claimed that it can only be liable after Dr. Villaruel has
    been declared insolvent.
     During the pendency of the case, Dr. Villaruel died; Court dismissed the case against
    him.
     CFI: ordered Sambok to pay the amount due.
     On appeal, Sambok argues that it is a mere assignor and qualified indorser. Sec. 65
    should be applied and therefore, it shall not be liable for the dishonor of the instrument.
    Issue: Whether Sambok Motors Corp. is a mere assignor and qualified indorser and as such,
    cannot be held liable.
    Ruling:
     The contention is without merit.
     Under the NIL, qualified indorsement is made by adding the words “without recourse,”
    “sans recourse,” and other words of similar import.
     The effect of qualified indorsement is that indorser will be a mere assignor of the title.
    Therefore, relieved of the general obligation to pay in case of dishonor but not of the
    liability arising from his warranties as a qualified indorser as provided in Sec. 65 of the
    NIL.
    DIAZMEAN KYLA G. SOTELO
    2020

     The effect of Sambok indorsing the note as “with recourse” is rendering the indorsement
    without qualification.
     Recourse by definition is resort to a person who is secondarily liable after the default of
    the person who is primarily liable.
     Having waived notice of demand, dishonor, protest and presentment, Sambok confirms
    his status as a general indorser of the instrument and therefore, rightfully liable.

    You might also like