30. CLAUDE BAUTISTA vs. AUTO PLUS TRADERS, Inc.

AUTHOR: YASON
G.R. No. 166405; August 6, 2008 NOTES:
TOPIC: Accommodation Party
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Sec. 29 NIL – An accommodation party is 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”
FACTS:
 Bautista, in his capacity as President and Presiding Officer of Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation, purchased various spare parts from Auto Plus
Traders and issued 2 postdated checks, which were dishonored. Auto Plus Traders then issued an affidavit for BP 22 on two charges
 Bautista asserts that BP 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 2 checks.
 However, Auto Plus argues that Bautista is personally liable since he issued the checks in his name for P151, 200 and a corporation check under the account of
Cruiser Bus Lines for P97,500. By issuing his check to cover the obligation of the corporation, he thus became an accommodation party.

ISSUE(S): Whether or not Baustista is an accommodation party

HELD:
No, he is not. An accommodation party is one who meets all 3 requisites:
(1) Must be party to the instrument, signing as a 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.
RATIO:
 Juridical entities have separate personalities from its officers. Evidence shows that Cruiser Bus Lines have obligations to Auto Plus Traders for tires and
that there was no agreement that Bautista will be held liable for the corporation’s obligations in his personal capacity. Hence, he cannot be held libale for
the 2 checks issued in payment for the obligation.
 Sec. 29 NIL – An accommodation party is 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” He must be party to the instrument, signing as a maker, drawer, acceptor, or
indorser; He must not receive value therefor; and He must sign for the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person.
 The first 2 elements are present, however there is insufficient evidence in the case to show he presence of the 3rd requisite. All it shows is that Bautista
signed the check drawn against his personal account for the value of the 24 tire sets received by Cruiser Bus Lines and Transport Corporation. There is no
showing of when Bautista issued the check and in what capacity. It cannot be assumed that Bautista intended to lend his name to the corporation, thus
Bautista cannot be considered as an accommodation party.
 However, Cruiser Bus Lines remains liable for the checks since there is no evidence that the debts covered by the subjects checks were paid.