4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reimbursed the lace value of the subject drafts, pursuant to the demand of the latter. For such reason, it should be relieved of any and all liabilities under the subject drafts. Finding that [SCPL] had the legal capacity to sue and seek judicial relief before Philippine courts, the [RTC], on 16 April 2009, rendered a Decision holding both [Llorente and EPCIB] solidarily liable for the value of the subject drafts. It ruled that when Llorente, as payee of the subject drafts, signed at the back thereof, he is said to ha[ve] become an indorser who warrants that on due presentment, the instruments would be accepted or paid or both, as the case may be, according to their tenor, and that if they be dishonored and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, they will pay the amount thereof to the holder. The same is also true for EPCIB, being the drawer of the subject drafts. It is of no moment if the bank was not a privy to the transaction for its liability as a drawer is not based on direct transaction but by virtue of the warranties it made within the purview of the Negotiable Instruments Law. The [RTC] even pointed that [Llorente and EPCIB] could not seek refuge on the alleged lack of notice of dishonor to them since they were responsible for the dishonor of the subject drafts aside from the fact that it would be futile to require such notice since it was EPCIB who countermanded the payment. The trial court did not also consider Llorente's justification for ordering a stopped payment as it found that it was done in order to escape liability of paying his obligations with [SCPL]. The decretal portion of [the RTC] Decision reads as: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff [SCPL] and against both defendants Llorente and [EPCIB], as follows: 1. Ordering defendants Quintin Llorente and Equitable PCI Bank to pay the plaintiff [SCPL], jointly and severally the amount of the subject bank drafts in the sum of us $300,000[.00]; 2. Ordering defendants Quintin Llorente and Equitable PCI Bank to pay the plaintiff [SCPL], jointly and severally, five (5%) percent of the amount claimed, or US $15,000.00, x x x as and by way of attorney's fees; and, 3. Costs of suit. For lack of merit, both defendants Llorente and Equitable PCI Bank's counterclaims as well as defendant Equitable PCI Bank's cross-claim against defendant Llorente are DENIED. SO ORDERED." Aggrieved with the said ruling, both [Llorente and EPCIB] appealed before [the CA]. x x x[7] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65911 3/22