NLRC Joint/ Solidary Obligation Facts ➢Private respondents were employees of petitioner who seek for separation pay and unpaid wages ➢Labor Arbiter decided the case in their favorIn the decision, IMIDC and Filipinas Carbon were ordered to pay private respondent their claims, no word “solidary" was used in the dispositive portion of the decision ➢Labor Arbiter issued an alias writ execution in which it was stated that the sheriff was vested the power to proceed the premises of IMIDC “and/or” Filipinas Carbon, thus holding them solidarily liable Issue: W/N petitioner IMIDC can be held solidarily liable with Filipinas Carbon when it was not provided in the judgment that the defendants are liable to pay jointly and severally liable a certain sum of money Ruling ➢No. It is already a well settled doctrine that when it is not provided in a judgment that the defendants are liable to p[ay jointly and severally a certain sum of money, none of them may be compelled to satisfy in full said judgment ➢Well entrench is the rule that solidary obligation cannot lightly inferred. There is solidary liability only when the obligation EXPRESSLY so states, when the law so provide or when the nature of the obligation so requires ➢Petitioner’s liability is only joint not solidary Ronquillo vs. CA Joint/ Solidary Obligation Facts ➢Ronquillo was one of the four defendants of the Civil case filed by Antonio So (private respondent ) for collection of money amounting to 117M ➢The amount sought to be collected represented the value of the checks issued by defendants in payment for foodstuffs delivered to and received by them ➢They entered into a compromise agreement. In said agreement both parties agree that failure of either party to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated, the innocent party will be

single and jointly liable ➢T h e d e c i s i o n o f R T C b a s e d o n t h e c o m p r o m i s e a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e s t h a t “ d e f e n d a n t s individually and agree to pay” within a periods of six months from January 1980 or before June30. Gervel and Qua were shareholders of Ladtek ➢Ladtek obtained loans from Metrobank and Private Dev’t Corp of the Phils (PDCP) ➢They entered into agreement that in case of default in payment of Ladtek loans. private respondent filed for the issuance of writ of execution ➢A writ of execution was issued for the satisfaction for the claim against the properties of the defendants including petitioner. 1980 Issue W/N Ronquillo is solidarily liable with the other defendants in the civil case Ruling ➢Yes.respectively or severally. The term individually has the same meaning as collectively. ➢An agreement to be individually liable undoubtedly creates a several obligation and a several obligation is one which binds himself to perform the whole obligation Republic Glass v. distinctively.entitled to an execution of the decision based on the compromise agreement and the defaulting party agrees and hold themselves to reimburse the innocent party for atty's fees and other feesBecause of failure of the other two defendants to pay their obligation. the parties will reimburse each other the proportionate shares of any sum that any might pay to creditors ➢Ladtek defaulted on its obligation to Metrobank and PDCP ➢Republic Glass Corp and Gervel Corp payed Metrobank 7M (not full payment of the amount due) ➢Republic Glass and Gervel demanded to Qua reimbursement of the total amount that RGC andGC paid to Metrobank ➢Qua refused to pay ➢Qua filed a complaint for injunction with damages with application for TRO . Novation Facts ➢Republic Glass. Qua Solidary Obligation. separately.

entered into surety bond with Country Bankers ➢Under the Surety Bond. he cannot demand reimbursement because his payment is less than his actual debt. The terms and conditions of the agreement remains the same. The parties did not constitute new obligations to substitute the agreements. ➢Novation extinguishes obligation by 1) changing the object or principal conditions. thus they cannot seek reimbursement from QuaOn the second issue: ➢There was no novation of the agreements. Country Bankers Joint/Solidary Obilgation on Surety Contract Facts ➢Rogelio Acidre (sole proprietor of Diamond Builders) was sued by Marceliano Borja for breach of his obligation to construct a residential and commercial building ➢Rogelio entered into a compromise agreement with Borja ➢Rogelio in order to secure himself. If the debtor pays less than his share in the obligation. ➢Since they only made partial payments. Rogelio and his spouse and other petitioners in this case signed an indemnity agreement consenting to their joint and several liability to Country Bankers should the surety bond be executed upon . RGC and GC failed to do this.Issues ➢W/N payment of the entire obligation is an essential condition for reimbursement? ➢W/N there was novation of agreements as held by CA (that there was implied novation) Ruling On the first issue: ➢Contrary to RGC and GC’s claim. RGC and GC should clearly and convincingly show that their payments to Metro bank and PDCP exceeded their proportionate shares in the obligations before they can seek reimbursement from Qua. payment of any amount will not automatically result in reimbursement. then he in effects pay only what is due to him. 2)substituting the person of the debtor and 3) subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor Diamond Builders vs. he can recover reimbursement from the co-debtors only in so far his payment exceeded his share in the obligation. This is precisely because if solidary debtor pays an amount equal to his proportionate share in the obligation. If a solidary debtor pays the obligation in part.

1218) . Art.➢Rogelio violated the compromise agreement ➢A writ of execution was issued against Country Bankers for violation of Rogelio to the compromise agreement ➢Country bankers payed the surety bond and ask for reimbursement from petitioners ➢Petitioners refused to pay ➢Country bankers filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioners\ Issue W/N Country Bankers is entitled for reimbursement? Ruling ➢Yes. 1217 of the Civil Code recognizes the right of reimbursement from a codebtor (principal co-debtor in case of suretyship) in favor of one who paid the surety ➢Only payments made after the obligation has prescribed or became illegal shall not entitle a solidary debtor for reimbursement (in accordance with Art.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful