G.R. No. 96405 June 26, 1996
BALDOMERO INCIONG, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Baldomero Inciong, Jr. signed a promissory note dated February 3, 1983, with Rene Naybe and Gregorio Pantanosas, jointly and severally binding themselves to pay respondent Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) P50,000.00. The loan matured on May 5, 1983, without payment. After demands, PBCom filed a collection suit against all three. The case against Pantanosas was later dismissed, while summons for Naybe was unserved as he was abroad, leaving Inciong as the sole defendant effectively before the trial court.
Inciong defended that he was induced by a friend, Rudy Campos, to sign as a co-maker for only P5,000.00 to finance a chainsaw for a business venture allegedly involving the bank manager. He claimed he signed blank promissory note forms, indicating the P5,000.00 limit on one copy, and was defrauded into being liable for P50,000.00. The trial court found the promissory note clearly showed the typewritten amount “50,000” directly below his signature, making him solidarily liable.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Inciong is solidarily liable for the full P50,000.00 under the promissory note despite his allegations of fraud and an agreement limiting his liability to P5,000.00.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held petitioner solidarily liable for the entire obligation. The promissory note is a negotiable instrument, and under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a person whose signature appears thereon is liable for the full amount stated, unless he can prove a vitiation of consent. Petitioner’s defense of fraud or a separate oral agreement limiting his liability to P5,000.00 is unavailing. Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written agreement, especially a negotiable instrument, which is presumed regular and fair. His uncorroborated testimony cannot overcome the clear terms of the note stating joint and several liability for P50,000.00.
Furthermore, the nature of a solidary obligation allows the creditor to proceed against any one of the debtors for the entire amount. The dismissal of the case against co-maker Pantanosas and the lack of jurisdiction over Naybe do not discharge petitioner’s own solidary liability. His remedy is to seek reimbursement from his co-debtors after payment, not to avoid liability to the bank. As a law degree holder, petitioner is presumed to have understood the document he signed. The Court found no reversible error in the lower courts’ decisions.