Scribd
Upload
99 views1 page

PNB vs. Picornell

Bartolome Picornell bought tobacco in Cebu following instructions from a firm. He obtained money from the Philippine National Bank and drafted a bill of exchange against the firm. The bank did not deliver shipping documents to the firm until the bill was paid, but it was not paid. The bank sued and the lower courts found Picornell and the firm liable to pay. The issue is whether Picornell can be held liable. The court ruled yes, as the drawer of the bill, Picornell warranted it would be accepted and paid, and as an agent, merely describing himself as such does not exempt him from personal liability.

Uploaded by

jack Frost
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
99 views1 page

PNB vs. Picornell

Bartolome Picornell bought tobacco in Cebu following instructions from a firm. He obtained money from the Philippine National Bank and drafted a bill of exchange against the firm. The bank did not deliver shipping documents to the firm until the bill was paid, but it was not paid. The bank sued and the lower courts found Picornell and the firm liable to pay. The issue is whether Picornell can be held liable. The court ruled yes, as the drawer of the bill, Picornell warranted it would be accepted and paid, and as an agent, merely describing himself as such does not exempt him from personal liability.

Uploaded by

jack Frost
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

L-18751           September 26, 1922

THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
BARTOLOME PICORNELL, ET AL., defendants.
BARTOLOME PICORNELL, appellant.

FACTS:

Bartolome Picornell, following instruction of Hyndman, Tavera and Ventura (the firm),
bought in Cebu 1,735 bales of tobacco. Picornell obtained from the branch of the National
Bank in Cebu (bank) a sum of money together with his commission. Picornell drafted a bill of
exchange in favor of the bank and against the firm. This instrument was delivered to the bank
together with the invoice and bill of lading of the tobacco, consigned to the firm at Manila. The
invoice and bill of lading were delivered to the bank with the understanding that the bank
should not deliver them to the firm except upon payment of the bill. This was accepted
thereafter by the firm. However on the alleged conditions of the tobacco, the bill of exchange
was not paid. PNB brought this action and sold the tobacco. The CFI of Manila sentenced the
defendants to pay solidarily to the plaintiff bank the sum of money. On appeal, the CA
sustained the ruling of the CFI. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Picornell may be held liable for the value of the bill of exchange.

RULING:

Yes. Picornell as the drawer of the bill, warranted that it would be accepted upon proper
presentment and paid in due course, and as it was not paid, he became liable to the payment
of its value to the holder thereof which is the bank.

Pursuant to Sec 20 of the NIL, where the instrument contains or a person adds to his
signature words indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal or representative
capacity, he is not liable on the instrument if he was duly authorized; but the mere addition of
words describing him as an agent, or as filling a representative character, without disclosing
his principal, does not exempt him from personal liability. In the case at bar, the fact that
Picornell was a commission agent of the firm, in the purchase of tobacco, does not necessarily
make him an agent of the company in its obligations arising from the drawing of the bill by
him.

You might also like