Cred Transaction Case

G.R. No.
L-27249 July 31, 1970 The lower court found that on 4 December 1961, Noemi Almeda,
married to Generoso Esquillo, and doing business under the name
and style of Almeda Trading, entered into a contract with the
National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) for the purchase of
MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant,
goods on credit, payable in 30 days from the dates of deliveries
vs. thereof. As required by' the NAMARCO, a bond for P5,000.00,
undertaken by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. (Exhibit "A"),
NOEMI ALMEDA, doing business under the name and style of was posted by the purchaser to secure the latter's faithful
ALMEDA TRADING, GENEROSO ESQUILLO and NATIONAL compliance with the terms of the contract. The agreement was later
MARKETING CORPORATION, defendants-appellees. supplemented on 17 October 1962 and a new bond for the same
amount of P5,000.00, also undertaken by the Manila Surety &
Fidelity Co., Inc. (Exhibit "C"),1 was given in favor of the NAMARCO
The bonds uniformly contained the following provisions:
De Santos & Delfino for plaintiff-appellant.
2. Should the Principal's account on any purchase be not paid

Government Corporate Counsel Leopoldo M. Abellera and Trial
on time, then the Surety, shall, upon demand, pay said account
Attorney Arsenio J. Mepale for defendant-appellee National
immediately to the NAMARCO;
Marketing Corporation.
3. Should the account of the Principal exceed the amount of

FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, such
REYES, J.B.L., J.: excess up to twenty (20%) per cent of said amount shall also be
deemed secured by this Bond;
This is an appeal from the ruling of the Court of First Instance of

Manila, rendered in Civil Case No. 62518, that the insolvency of a 4. The Surety expressly waives its right to demand payment
debtor-principal does not release the surety from its obligation to and notice of non-payment and agreed that the liability of the
the creditor under the bond. Surety shall be direct and immediate and not contingent upon the
exhaustion by the NAMARCO of whatever remedies it may have
against the Principal and same shall be valid and continuous until
the obligation so guaranteed is paid in full; and
and had already demanded payment of the outstanding accounts of
the couple.
5. The Surety also waives its right to be notified of any
extension of the terms of payment which the NAMARCO may give
to the Principal, it being understood that were extension is given to
satisfy the account, that such extension shall not extinguish the Defendant NAMARCO filed its answer denying the averments of the
guaranty unless the same is made against the express wish of the complaint and setting up, as affirmative defenses, lack of cause of
Surety. action and the court's want of jurisdiction. On 16 December 1966,
the court rendered judgment sustaining NAMARCO's contention
that the insolvency of the debtor-principal did not discharge the
surety's liability under the bond. Thus, the complaint was dismissed
The records show that on 8 June 1965, the marketing firm and plaintiff surety company was ordered to pay off the
demanded from the purchaser Almeda Trading the settlement of its indebtedness of the defendant spouses to the NAMARCO to the
back accounts which, as of 15 May 1965, allegedly amounted to extent of its (the Surety's) undertaking, plus attorneys' fees and
P16,335.09. Furnished with copy of the NAMARCO's demand- letter, costs. From this decision, plaintiff surety interposed the present
the surety company thereafter also wrote to the said purchaser appeal.
urging it to liquidate its unsettled accounts with the NAMARCO
(Exhibit "E-1"). It appears, however, that previous to this, or on 26
March 1965, Generoso Esquillo instituted voluntary insolvency
proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Laguna (Sp. Proc. No. SP- Plaintiff-appellant's action to secure its discharge from the
181), and by order of said court of 6 April 1965, he was declared suretyship was based on Article 2071 of the Civil Code,4 Which
insolvent, with listed credits amounting to P111,873.002 and provides the surety with certain protective remedies that may be
properties valued at P39,0,00.00. In the meeting of the named resorted to before he has paid, but after he has become liable to do
creditors of the insolvent held on 14 May 1965 for the purpose of so.5
electing the assignee of his properties, the NAMARCO was
represented and its contingent claim duly registered.3
Upon the other hand, the lower court's ruling, now on appeal, is
anchored on an equally explicit provision of the Insolvency law ( Act
On 10 September 1965, the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., 1956, as amended), to writ:.
commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila Civil Case No.
62518 against the spouses Noemi Almeda and Generoso Esquillo,
and the NAMARCO, to secure its release from liability under the SEC. 68. ...
bonds executed in favor of NAMARCO. The action was based on the
allegation that the defendant spouses had become insolvent and
that defendant NAMARCO had rescinded its agreement with them
No discharge (of the insolvent from his obligations) shall release, against the creditor, as is apparent from the precise terms of the
discharge or affect any person liable for the same debt, for or with legal provision. "The guarantor" (says Article 2071 of the Civil Code
the debtor, either as partner, joint contractor, indorser, surety, or of the Philippines) "even before having paid, may proceed against
otherwise. the principal debtor ------------------ to obtain a release from the
guaranty ---------------." The juridical rule grants no cause of action
against the creditor for a release of the guaranty, before payment of
the credit, for a plain reason: the creditor is not compellable to
The issue posed by this appeal, therefore, is whether a surety can
release the guaranty (which is a property right) against his will. For,
avail itself of the relief, specifically afforded in Article 2071 of the
the release of the guarantor imports an extinction of his obligation
Civil Code and be released from its liability under the bonds,
to the creditor; it connotes, therefore, either a remission or a
notwithstanding a prior declaration of the insolvency of the debtor-
novation by subrogation, and either operation requires the
principal in an insolvency proceeding.
creditor's assent for its validity (See Article 1270 and Article 1301).
Especially should this be the case where the principal debtor has
become insolvent, for the purpose of a guaranty is exactly to
We see no reversible error in the decision appealed. protect the creditor against such a contingency.
There is no question that under the bonds posted in favor of the In what manner, then, can the article operate? Where the debtor
NAMARCO in this case, the surety company assumed to make can not make full payment, the release of the guarantor can only be
immediate payment to said firm of any due and unsettled accounts obtained with the assent of the creditor, by persuading the latter to
of the debtor-principal, even without demand and notice of the accept an equally safe security, either another suitable guaranty or
debtor's non-payment, the surety, in fact, agreeing that its liability else a pledge or mortgage. Absent the creditor's consent, the
to the creditor shall be direct, without benefit of exhaustion of the principal debtor may only proceed to protect the demanding
debtor's properties, and to remain valid and continuous until the guarantor by a counterbond or counter guaranty, as is authorized
guaranteed obligation is fully satisfied. In short, appellant secured by the codal precept (Article 2071 in fine). To this effect is the
to the creditor not just the payment by the debtor-principal of his opinion of the Spanish commentator, Scaevola, in his explanations
accounts, but the payment itself of such accounts. Clearly, a to Article 1843 of the Spanish Civil Code (from which Article 2071 of
contract of suretyship was thus created, the appellant becoming the our Code is derived). Says Scaevola:
insurer, not merely of the debtor's solvency or ability to pay, but of
the debt itself.6 Under the Civil Code, with the debtor's insolvency
having been judicially recognized, herein appellant's resort to the
Como se prestaran tales garantias al fiador? Lo contesta el aludido
courts to be released from the undertaking thus assumed would
parrafo final del Articulo 1843. Se hara por uno de estos dos modos:
have been appropriate.7 Nevertheless, the guarantor's action for
ora consiguiendo el deudor que el acreedor abandone libremente
release can only be exercised against the principal debtor and not
aquella fianza, lo cual ocurrira dandole el deudor otra garantia advantage At least, the latter would be answerable only for
analoga, ya por razon de la persona fiadora, ya ofreciendole el whatever amount may remain not covered or unsatisfied by the
deudor al mismo fiador, pero continuando este como tal, una disposition of the insolvent's properties, 1 0 with the right to go
garantia que lo ponga a cubierto de los procedimientos del acreedor against debtor-principal after it has made the necessary payment to
y del peligro de insolvencia del deudor. (Scaevola Codigo Civil, 2d the creditor. For another, the fact that the debtor- principal may be
Ed., Vol. 28, pp. 651652). discharged from all his outstanding obligations in the insolvency
case would not benefit the surety, as to relieve it of its liability
under the surety agreement. That is so provided in Section 68 of the
Insolvency Act which shall be controlling in the case.
The appellant's troubles are compounded by the fact that when the
complaint for release from suretyship was filed in the Manila court
on 10 September 1965, the insolvency case in the Laguna court was
already pending and the debtor-principal Generoso Esquillo had Finally, even supposing that the present action is not blocked by the
been judicially declared an insolvent. By the time the appellant insolvency proceedings because it does not aim at reducing the
sued, therefore, the insolvency court had already acquired insolvent's assets, but only at having the suretyship substituted by
jurisdiction over all the debtor's properties and of all claims by and other equivalent security, still it is difficult to see how the principal
against him, to the exclusion of any other court.8 In the debtor, with his business, property and assets impounded by the
circumstances, the lawful recourse of the guarantor of an obligation insolvency court, can obtain other securities with which to replace
of the insolvent would be to file a contingent claim in the insolvency the guaranty given by the plaintiff-appellant. The action at bar
proceeding, if his rights as such guarantor or surety are not to be would seem, under the circumstances, destined to end in futility.
barred by the subsequent discharge of the insolvent debtor from all
his liabilities.9
WHEREFORE, with the modification that appellant's liability shall be
limited to the payment of whatever amount may remain due to the
In the case at bar, it is true that the guaranteed claim of NAMARCO appellee NAMARCO and is unsatisfied in the insolvency proceeding,
was registered or filed in the insolvency proceeding. But appellant but not to exceed the amount of the surety's undertaking under the
can not utilize this fact in support of its petition for release from the bonds, the decision appealed from is affirmed in all other respects.
assumed undertaking. For one thing, it is almost a certainty that Costs against appellant surety company.
creditor NAMARCO can not secure full satisfaction of its credit out
of the debtor's properties brought into the insolvency proceeding.
Considering that under the contract of suretyship, which remains
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando,
valid and subsisting, the entire obligation may even be demanded
Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.
directly against the surety itself, the creditor's act in resorting first
to the properties of the insolvent debtor is to the surety's

Cred Transaction Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cred Transaction Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cred Transaction Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

2. Should the Principal's account on any purchase be not paid

3. Should the account of the Principal exceed the amount of

This is an appeal from the ruling of the Court of First Instance of

You might also like