Payment for honor vs acceptance for honor

In the Negotiable Instruments Law subject under Atty. Boligao we were assigned to give oral reports in pairs. Ranel Ramoga and I discussed payment for honor. In the tradition of Dating Daan, Mr. Ramoga was the reader of each section while I did the explaining. We got quite a laugh in the process.

Our main text was The Law on Negotiable Instruments, 2013 Edition by De Leon and De Leon.

On page 294 of the book the authors distinguished payment for honor from acceptance for honor thus:

And this is where our pair faced a problematic question posed by a classmate. She asked why the acceptor is only secondarily liable in the payment for honor but primarily liable in the acceptance for honor. I could not give an honest answer because even the authors are confused.

Section 165 actually refers to acceptance for honor (the latter, not the former,  in the above comparison). And Section 62, on the other hand, refers to a regular acceptor, not an acceptor for honor.