Forum Shopping and its Consequences
March 6, 2026
GR 1743; (August, 1905) (Digest)
March 6, 2026G.R. No. 1808
Date: August 23, 1905
Parties:
– Plaintiff-Appellee: American Bank
– Defendants-Appellants: Macondray & Co. and V. S. Wolff
FACTS:
2. The bill was dishonored upon presentation in the United States because F. H. Taylor & Co. could not be found, and a notarial protest was issued on September 25, 1902.
3. The bank claimed that Macondray & Co. endorsed the bill with the words: “V. S. Wolff. The signature is O.K. Payment guaranteed. Protest, demand, and notice of nonpayment waived. Macondray & Company.”
4. Macondray & Co. denied guaranteeing payment, asserting that its endorsement was only: “V. S. Wolff. The signature is O.K. Macondray & Company,” and that the additional guarantee language was added after its signature and after the protest.
5. The notarial copy of the protest showed the endorsement without the guarantee clause, supporting Macondray & Co.’s claim.
ISSUE:
Whether Macondray & Co. is liable as an indorser on the bill of exchange, given the alleged alteration of its endorsement.
RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the lower court’s judgment and held that Macondray & Co. is NOT LIABLE.
1. Alteration of the Endorsement: The Court found that the guarantee clause (“Payment guaranteed. Protest, demand, and notice of nonpayment waived”) was added to Macondray & Co.’s endorsement after the company had signed it and after the bill was protested. This constituted a material alteration of the contract without the consent of the obligor (Macondray & Co.), thereby discharging it from liability.
2. Nature of the Original Endorsement: Even without the alteration, Macondray & Co.’s original endorsement (“V. S. Wolff. The signature is O.K.”) was merely a certification of the genuineness of Wolff’s signaturean identification endorsementand did not constitute a guarantee of payment. No evidence was presented that Wolff’s signature was forged or that he was not the actual drawer.
3. Consequences of Alteration: Under the law governing negotiable instruments, a material alteration made by the holder without the assent of the party liable discharges that party from obligation on the instrument.
Disposition: The judgment against Macondray & Co. was reversed. Costs were charged against the plaintiff-appellee, American Bank. The case was remanded to the lower court for execution of the judgment.
Concurring Justices: Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, and Carson, JJ.
Non-participating: Willard, J.
