G.R. No. 2304. November 03, 1905

On September 26, 1902, the defendant Fulgencio Tan-Tongco executed
and delivered to the other defendant, Antonio Torres, a promissory note
whereby he promised to pay to the order of said Torres 5,300 pesos
three months after the date of said note—that is to say, on the 26th
day of December, 1902. On the said 26th day of September, 1902, the
defendant Torres duly endorsed and delivered said note to the
plaintiff. On December 27,1902, a demand for payment was duly made upon
the defendant Tan-Tongco by a notary public. Payment was refused and
the said note was duly protested. No notice of this demand and protest
was given to Antonio Torres prior to the commencement of this action.
Upon these facts the court below entered judgment for the defendant
Torres upon the ground that he had been relieved from liability upon
the note by the failure of plaintiff to notify him of the protest
thereof.

We do not think that this judgment can be sustained. There is
nothing in the Code of Commerce which requires notice to an endorser of
the protest of a promissory note at the time of or immediately
subsequent to the said protest. If notice is given in accordance with
article 517 of that code, it is sufficient.

The question whether the plaintiff, in view of the provisions of
article 516 of the Code of Commerce, can maintain one action against
the two defendants was not raised by demurrer or answer, and was
therefore waived.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and after the
expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered in accordance
herewith and the case remanded to the court below, with directions to
enter judgment against the defendant Antonio Torres, as prayed for in
the complaint, with costs. No costs will be allowed to either party in
this court. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.