Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

asked to execute any suretyship to guarantee its payment. Neither did METROBANK nor UTEFS inform them that the 1979 Letter of Credit has been opened and the Continuing Suretyships separately executed in February, 1977 shall guarantee its payment (Appellees brief, pp. 2-3; rollo, p. 28). The 1979 letter of credit (Exhibit "B") was negotiated. METROBANK paid Planters Products the amount of P815,600.00 which payment was covered by a Bill of Exchange (Exhibit "C"), dated 4 June 1979, in favor of (Original Records, p. 331). Pursuant to the above commercial transaction, UTEFS executed and delivered to METROBANK and Trust Receipt (Exh. "D"), dated 4 June 1979, whereby the former acknowledged receipt in trust from the latter of the aforementioned goods from Planters Products which amounted to P815, 600.00. Being the entrusted, the former agreed to deliver to METROBANK the entrusted goods in the event of non-sale or, if sold, the proceeds of the sale thereof, on or before September 2, 1979. However, UTEFS did not acquiesce to the obligatory stipulations in the trust receipt. As a consequence, METROBANK sent letters to the said principal obligor and its sureties, Norberto Uy and Jacinto Uy Dio, demanding payment of the amount due. Informed of the amount due, UTEFS made partial payments to the Bank which were accepted by the latter. Answering one of the demand letters, Dio, thru counsel, denied his liability for the amount demanded and requested METROBANK to send him copies of documents showing the source of his liability. In its reply, the bank informed him that the source of his liability is the Continuing Suretyship which he executed on February 25, 1977. As a rejoinder, Dio maintained that he cannot be held liable for the 1979 credit accommodation because it is a new obligation contracted without his participation. Besides, the 1977 credit accommodation which he guaranteed has been fully paid. Having sent the last demand letter to UTEFS, Dio and Uy and finding resort to extrajudicial remedies to be futile, METROBANK filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money (P613,339.32, as of January 31, 1982, inclusive of interest, commission penalty and bank charges) with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, against Uy Tiam, representative of UTEFS and impleaded Dio and Uy as parties-defendants. The court issued an order, dated 29 July 1983, granting the attachment writ, which writ was returned unserved and unsatisfied as defendant Uy Tiam was nowhere to be found at his given address and his commercial enterprise was already non-operational (Original Records, p. 37). On April 11, 1984, Norberto Uy and Jacinto Uy Dio (suretiesdefendant herein) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. They maintained that the obligation which they guaranteed in 1977 has been extinguished since it has already been paid in the same year. Accordingly, the Continuing Suretyships executed in 1977 cannot be availed of to secure Uy Tiam's Letter of Credit obtained in 1979 because a guaranty cannot exist without a valid obligation. It was further argued that they can not be held liable for the

G.R. No. 89775 November 26, 1992 JACINTO UY DIO and NORBERTO UY, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.: Continuing Suretyship Agreements signed by the petitioners set off this present controversy. Petitioners assail the 22 June 1989 Decision of the Court in CA-G.R. CV No. 17724 1 which reversed the 2 December 1987 Decision of Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in a collection suit entitled "Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs . Uy Tiam, doing business under the name of "UY TIAM ENTERPRISES & FREIGHT SERVICES," Jacinto Uy Dio and Norberto Uy" and docketed as Civil Case No. 82-9303. They likewise challenge public respondent's Resolution of 21 August 1989 2 denying their motion for the reconsideration of the former. The impugned Decision of the Court summarizes the antecedent facts as follows: It appears that in 1977, Uy Tiam Enterprises and Freight Services (hereinafter referred to as UTEFS), thru its representative Uy Tiam, applied for and obtained credit accommodations (letter of credit and trust receipt accommodations) from the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (hereinafter referred to as METROBANK) in the sum of P700,000.00 (Original Records, p. 333). To secure the aforementioned credit accommodations Norberto Uy and Jacinto Uy Dio executed separate Continuing Suretyships (Exhibits "E" and "F" respectively), dated 25 February 1977, in favor of the latter. Under the aforesaid agreements, Norberto Uy agreed to pay METROBANK any indebtedness of UTEFS up to the aggregate sum of P300,000.00 while Jacinto Uy Dio agreed to be bound up to the aggregate sum of P800,000.00. Having paid the obligation under the above letter of credit in 1977, UTEFS, through Uy Tiam, obtained another credit accommodation from METROBANK in 1978, which credit accommodation was fully settled before an irrevocable letter of credit was applied for and obtained by the abovementioned business entity in 1979 (September 8, 1987, tsn, pp. 14-15). The Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. SN-Loc-309, dated March 30, 1979, in the sum of P815, 600.00, covered UTEFS' purchase of "8,000 Bags Planters Urea and 4,000 Bags Planters 21-0-0." It was applied for and obtain by UTEFS without the participation of Norberto Uy and Jacinto Uy Dio as they did not sign the document denominated as "Commercial Letter of Credit and Application." Also, they were not

obligation contracted in 1979 because they are not privies thereto as it was contracted without their participation (Records, pp. 42-46). On April 24, 1984, METROBANK filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. Invoking the terms and conditions embodied in the comprehensive suretyships separately executed by suretiesdefendants, the bank argued that sureties-movants bound themselves as solidary obligors of defendant Uy Tiam to both existing obligations and future ones. It relied on Article 2053 of the new Civil Code which provides: "A guaranty may also be given as security for future debts, the amount of which is not yet known; . . . ." It was further asserted that the agreement was in full force and effect at the time the letter of credit was obtained in 1979 as sureties-defendants did not exercise their right to revoke it by giving notice to the bank. (Ibid., pp. 51-54). Meanwhile, the resolution of the aforecited motion to dismiss was held in abeyance pending the introduction of evidence by the parties as per order dated February 21, 1986 (Ibid., p. 71). Having been granted a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order dated March 7, 1986 within which to file the answer, suretiesdefendants filed their responsive pleading which merely rehashed the arguments in their motion to dismiss and maintained that they are entitled to the benefit of excussion (Original Records, pp. 88-93). On February 23, 1987, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against defendant Uy Tiam on the ground that it has no information as to the heirs or legal representatives of the latter who died sometime in December, 1986, which motion was granted on the following day ( Ibid., pp. 180-182). After trial, . . . the court a quo, on December 2, 198, rendered its judgment, a portion of which reads: The evidence and the pleadings, thus, pose the querry ( sic): Are the defendants Jacinto Uy Dioand Norberto Uy liable for the obligation contracted by Uy Tiam under the Letter of Credit (Exh. B) issued on March 30, 1987 by virtue of the Continuing Suretyships they executed on February 25, 1977? Under the admitted proven facts, the Court finds that they are not. a) When Uy and Dio executed the continuing suretyships, exhibits E and F, on February 25, 1977, Uy Tiam was obligated to the plaintiff in the amount of P700,000.00 and this was the obligation which both obligation which both defendants guaranteed to pay. Uy Tiam paid this 1977 obligation and such payment extinguished the obligation they assumed as guarantors/sureties. b) The 1979 Letter of Credit (Exh. B) is different from the 1977 Letter of Credit which covered the 1977 account of Uy Tiam. Thus, the obligation under either is apart and distinct from the obligation created in the other as evidenced by the fact that

Uy Tiam had to apply anew for the 1979 transaction (Exh. A). And Dio and Uy, being strangers thereto, cannot be answerable thereunder. c) The plaintiff did not serve notice to the defendants Dio and Uy when it extended to Credit at least to inform them that the continuing suretyships they executed on February 25, 1977 will be considered by the plaintiff to secure the 1979 transaction of Uy Tiam. d) There is no sufficient and credible showing that Dio and Uy were fully informed of the import of the Continuing Suretyships when they affixed their signatures thereon that they are thereby securing all future obligations which Uy Tiam may contract the plaintiff. On the contrary, Dio and Uy categorically testified that they signed the blank forms in the office of Uy Tiam at 623 Asuncion Street, Binondo, Manila, in obedience to the instruction of Uy Tiam, their former employer. They denied having gone to the office of the plaintiff to subscribe to the documents (October 1, 1987, tsn, pp. 5-7, 14; October 15, 1987, tsn, pp. 3-8, 13-16). (Records, pp. 333-334). 3 xxx xxx xxx In its Decision, the trial court decreed as follows: PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered: a) dismissing the COMPLAINT against JACINTO UY DIO and NORBERTO UY; b) ordering the plaintiff to pay to Dio and Uy the amount of P6,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and c) denying all other claims of the parties for want of legal and/or factual basis. SO ORDERED. (Records, p. 336) 4 From the said Decision, the private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 17724. In support thereof, it made the following assignment of errors in its Brief: I. THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING AND HOLDING THAT DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES JACINTO UY DIO AND NORBERTO UY ARE SOLIDARILY LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT FOR THE OBLIGATION OF DEFENDANT UY TIAM UNDER THE LETTER OF CREDIT ISSUED ON MARCH 30, 1979 BY VIRTUE OF THE CONTINUING SURETYSHIPS THEY EXECUTED ON FEBRUARY 25, 1977. II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT IS ANSWERABLE TO DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES JACINTO UY DIO AND NORBERTO UY FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION. 5

On 22 June 1989, public respondent promulgated the assailed Decision the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED AND SET, ASIDE. In lieu thereof, another one is rendered: 1) Ordering sureties-appellees Jacinto Uy Dio and Norberto Uy to pay, jointly and severally, to appellant METROBANK the amount of P2,397,883.68 which represents the amount due as of July 17, 1987 inclusive of principal, interest and charges; 2) Ordering sureties-appellees Jacinto Uy Dio and Norberto Uy to pay, jointly and severally, appellant METROBANK the accruing interest, fees and charges thereon from July 18, 1987 until the whole monetary obligation is paid; and 3) Ordering sureties-appellees Jacinto Uy Dio and Norberto Uy to pay, jointly and severally, to plaintiff P20,000.00 as attorney's fees. With costs against appellees. SO ORDERED. 6 In ruling for the herein private respondent (hereinafter METROBANK), public respondent held that the Continuing Suretyship Agreements separately executed by the petitioners in 1977 were intended to guarantee payment of Uy Tiam's outstanding as well as future obligations; each suretyship arrangement was intended to remain in full force and effect until METROBANK would have been notified of its revocation. Since no such notice was given by the petitioners, the suretyships are deemed outstanding and hence, cover even the 1979 letter of credit issued by METROBANK in favor of Uy Tiam. Petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the foregoing Decision. They questioned the public respondent's construction of the suretyship agreements and its ruling with respect to the extent of their liability thereunder. They argued the even if the agreements were in full force and effect when METROBANK granted Uy Tiam's application for a letter of credit in 1979, the public respondent nonetheless seriously erred in holding them liable for an amount over and above their respective face values. In its Resolution of 21 August 1989, public respondent denied the motion: . . . considering that the issues raised were substantially the same grounds utilized by the lower court in rendering judgment for defendants-appellees which We upon appeal found and resolved to be untenable, thereby reversing and setting aside said judgment and rendering another in favor of plaintiff, and no new or fresh issues have been posited to justify reversal of Our decision herein, . . . . 7 Hence, the instant petition which hinges on the issue of whether or not the petitioners may be held liable as sureties for the obligation contracted by Uy Tiam with METROBANK on 30 May 1979 under and by virtue of the Continuing Suretyship Agreements signed on 25 February 1977. Petitioners vehemently deny such liability on the ground that the Continuing Suretyship Agreements were automatically extinguished upon payment of the principal obligation

secured thereby, i.e., the letter of credit obtained by Uy Tiam in 1977. They further claim that they were not advised by either METROBANK or Uy Tiam that the Continuing Suretyship Agreements would stand as security for the 1979 obligation. Moreover, it is posited that to extend the application of such agreements to the 1979 obligation would amount to a violation of Article 2052 of the Civil Code which expressly provides that a guaranty cannot exist without a valid obligation. Petitioners further argue that even granting, for the sake of argument, that the Continuing Suretyship Agreements still subsisted and thereby also secured the 1979 obligations incurred by Uy Tiam, they cannot be held liable for more than what they guaranteed to pay because it s axiomatic that the obligations of a surety cannot extend beyond what is stipulated in the agreement. On 12 February 1990, this Court resolved to give due course to the petition after considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced therein, the Comment thereon by the private respondent and the Reply thereto by the petitioners; the parties were required to submit their respective Memoranda. The issues presented for determination are quite simple: 1. Whether petitioners are liable as sureties for the 1979 obligations of Uy Tiam to METROBANK by virtue of the Continuing Suretyship Agreements they separately signed in 1977; and 2. On the assumption that they are, what is the extent of their liabilities for said 1979 obligations. Under the Civil Code, a guaranty may be given to secure even future debts, the amount of which may not known at the time the guaranty is executed. 8 This is the basis for contracts denominated as continuing guaranty or suretyship. A continuing guaranty is one which is not limited to a single transaction, but which contemplates a future course of dealing, covering a series of transactions, generally for an indefinite time or until revoked. It is prospective in its operation and is generally intended to provide security with respect to future transactions within certain limits, and contemplates a succession of liabilities, for which, as they accrue, the guarantor becomes liable. 9 Otherwise stated, a continuing guaranty is one which covers all transactions, including those arising in the future, which are within the description or contemplation of the contract, of guaranty, until the expiration or termination thereof. 10 A guaranty shall be construed as continuing when by the terms thereof it is evident that the object is to give a standing credit to the principal debtor to be used from time to time either indefinitely or until a certain period, especially if the right to recall the guaranty is expressly reserved. Hence, where the contract of guaranty states that the same is to secure advances to be made "from time to time" the guaranty will be construed to be a continuing one. 11 In other jurisdictions, it has been held that the use of particular words and expressions such as payment of "any debt," "any indebtedness," "any deficiency," or "any sum," or the guaranty of "any transaction" or money to be furnished the principal debtor "at any time," or "on such time" that the principal debtor may require, have been construed to indicate a continuing guaranty. 12 In the case at bar, the pertinent portion of paragraph I of the suretyship agreement executed by petitioner Uy provides thus: I. For and in consideration of any existing indebtedness to the BANK of UY TIAM (hereinafter called the "Borrower"), for the payment of which the SURETY is now obligated to the BANK, either as guarantor or otherwise, and/or in order to induce the BANK, in its discretion, at any time or from time to time hereafter, to make loans or advances or to extend credit in any other manner to, or at the request, or for the account of the Borrower, either with or without security, and/or to

purchase or discount, or to make any loans or advances evidence or secured by any notes, bills, receivables, drafts, acceptances, checks, or other instruments or evidences of indebtedness (all hereinafter called "instruments") upon which the Borrower is or may become liable as maker, endorser, acceptor, or otherwise, the SURETY agrees to guarantee, and does hereby guarantee, the punctual payment at maturity to the loans, advances credits and/or other obligations hereinbefore referred to, and also any and all other indebtedness of every kind which is now or may hereafter become due or owing to the BANK by the Borrower, together with any and all expenses which may be incurred by the BANK in collecting all or any such instruments or other indebtedness or obligations herein before referred to, and/or in enforcing any rights hereunder, and the SURETY also agrees that the BANK may make or cause any and all such payments to be made strictly in accordance with the terms and provisions of any agreement(s) express or implied, which has (have) been or may hereafter be made or entered into by the Borrow in reference thereto, regardless of any law, regulation or decree, unless the same is mandatory and non-waivable in character, nor or hereafter in effect, which might in any manner affect any of the terms or provisions of any such agreement(s) or the Bank's rights with respect thereto as against the Borrower, or cause or permit to be invoked any alteration in the time, amount or manner of payment by the Borrower of any such instruments, obligations or indebtedness; provided, however, that the liability of the SURETY hereunder shall not exceed at any one time the aggregate principal sum of PESOS: THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND ONLY (P300,000.00) (irrespective of the currenc(ies) in which the obligations hereby guaranteed are payable), and such interest as may accrue thereon either before or after any maturity(ies) thereof and such expenses as may be incurred by the BANK as referred to above. 13 Paragraph I of the Continuing Suretyship Agreement executed by petitioner Dio contains identical provisions except with respect to the guaranteed aggregate principal amount which is EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (P800,000.00). 14 Paragraph IV of both agreements stipulate that: VI. This is a continuing guaranty and shall remain in full force and effect until written notice shall have been received by the BANK that it has been revoked by the SURETY, but any such notice shall not release the SURETY, from any liability as to any instruments, loans, advances or other obligations hereby guaranteed, which may be held by the BANK, or in which the BANK may have any interest at the time of the receipt (sic) of such notice. No act or omission of any kind on the BANK'S part in the premises shall in any event affect or impair this guaranty, nor shall same (sic) be affected by any change which may arise by reason of the death of the SURETY, or of any partner(s) of the SURETY, or of the Borrower, or of the accession to any such partnership of any one or more new partners. 15 The foregoing stipulations unequivocally reveal that the suretyship agreement in the case at bar are continuing in nature. Petitioners do not deny this; in fact, they candidly admitted it. Neither have they denied the fact that they had not revoked the suretyship agreements. Accordingly, as correctly held by the public respondent: Undoubtedly, the purpose of the execution of the Continuing Suretyships was to induce appellant to grant any application for credit

accommodation (letter of credit/trust receipt) UTEFS may desire to obtain from appellant bank. By its terms, each suretyship is a continuing one which shall remain in full force and effect until the bank is notified of its revocation. xxx xxx xxx When the Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. SN-Loc-309 was obtained from appellant bank, for the purpose of obtaining goods (covered by a trust receipt) from Planters Products, the continuing suretyships were in full force and effect. Hence, even if sureties-appellees did not sign the "Commercial Letter of Credit and Application, they are still liable as the credit accommodation (letter of credit/trust receipt) was covered by the said suretyships. What makes them liable thereunder is the condition which provides that the Borrower "is or may become liable as maker, endorser, acceptor or otherwise." And since UTEFS which ( sic) was liable as principal obligor for having failed to fulfill the obligatory stipulations in the trust receipt, they as insurers of its obligation, are liable thereunder. 16 Petitioners maintain, however, that their Continuing Suretyship Agreements cannot be made applicable to the 1979 obligation because the latter was not yet in existence when the agreements were executed in 1977; under Article 2052 of the Civil Code, a guaranty "cannot exist without a valid obligation." We cannot agree. First of all, the succeeding article provides that "[a] guaranty may also be given as security for future debts, the amount of which is not yet known." Secondly, Article 2052 speaks about a valid obligation, as distinguished from a void obligation, and not an existing or current obligation. This distinction is made clearer in the second paragraph of Article 2052 which reads: Nevertheless, a guaranty may be constituted to guarantee the performance of a voidable or an unenforceable contract. It may also guarantee a natural obligation. As to the amount of their liability under the Continuing Suretyship Agreements, petitioners contend that the public respondent gravely erred in finding them liable for more than the amount specified in their respective agreements, to wit: (a) P800,000.00 for petitioner Dio and (b) P300,000.00 for petitioner Uy. The limit of the petitioners respective liabilities must be determined from the suretyship agreement each had signed. It is undoubtedly true that the law looks upon the contract of suretyship with a jealous eye, and the rule is settled that the obligation of the surety cannot be extended by implication beyond its specified limits. To the extent, and in the manner, and under the circumstances pointed out in his obligation, he is bound, and no farther. 17 Indeed, the Continuing Suretyship Agreements signed by petitioner Dio and petitioner Uy fix the aggregate amount of their liability, at any given time, at P800,000.00 and P300,000.00, respectively. The law is clear that a guarantor may bond himself for less, but not for more than the principal debtor, both as regards the amount and the onerous nature of the conditions. 18 In the case at bar, both agreements provide for liability for interest and expenses, to wit: . . . and such interest as may accrue thereon either before or after any maturity(ies) thereof and such expenses as may be incurred by the BANK referred to above. 19 They further provide that: In the event of judicial proceedings being instituted by the BANK against the SURETY to enforce any of the terms and conditions of this

undertaking, the SURETY further agrees to pay the BANK a reasonable compensation for and as attorney's fees and costs of collection, which shall not in any event be less than ten per cent (10%) of the amount due (the same to be due and payable irrespective of whether the case is settled judicially or extrajudicially). 20 Thus, by express mandate of the Continuing Suretyship Agreements which they had signed, petitioners separately bound themselves to pay interest, expenses, attorney's fees and costs. The last two items are pegged at not less than ten percent (10%) of the amount due. Even without such stipulations, the petitioners would, nevertheless, be liable for the interest and judicial costs. Article 2055 of the Civil Code provides: 21 Art. 2055. A guaranty is not presumed; it must be express and cannot extend to more than what is stipulated therein. If it be simple or indefinite, it shall comprise not only the principal obligation, but also all its accessories, including the judicial costs, provided with respect to the latter, that the guarantor shall only be liable for those costs incurred after he has been judicially required to pay. Interest and damages are included in the term accessories. However, such interest should run only from the date when the complaint was filed in court. Even attorney's fees may be imposed whenever appropriate, pursuant to Article 2208 of the Civil Code. Thus, in Plaridel Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. P.L. Galang Machinery Co., Inc., 22 this Court held: Petitioner objects to the payment of interest and attorney's fees because: (1) they were not mentioned in the bond; and (2) the surety would become liable for more than the amount stated in the contract of suretyship. xxx xxx xxx The objection has to be overruled, because as far back as the year 1922 this Court held in Tagawa vs. Aldanese, 43 Phil. 852, that creditors suing on a suretyship bond may recover from the surety as part of their damages, interest at the legal rate even if the surety would thereby become liable to pay more than the total amount stipulated in the bond. The theory is that interest is allowed only by way of damages for delay upon the part of the sureties in making payment after they should have done so. In some states, the interest has been charged from the date of the interest has been charged from the date of the judgment of the appellate court. In this jurisdiction, we rather prefer to follow the general practice, which is to order that interest begin to run from the date when the complaint was filed in court, . . . Such theory aligned with sec. 510 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was subsequently recognized in the Rules of Court (Rule 53, section 6) and with Article 1108 of the Civil Code (now Art. 2209 of the New Civil Code). In other words the surety is made to pay interest, not by reason of the contract, but by reason of its failure to pay when demanded and for having compelled the plaintiff to resort to the courts to obtain payment. It should be observed that interest does not run from the time the obligation became due, but from the filing of the complaint.

As to attorney's fees. Before the enactment of the New Civil Code, successful litigants could not recover attorney's fees as part of the damages they suffered by reason of the litigation. Even if the party paid thousands of pesos to his lawyers, he could not charge the amount to his opponent (Tan Ti vs. Alvear, 26 Phil. 566). However the New Civil Code permits recovery of attorney's fees in eleven cases enumerated in Article 2208, among them, "where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's (sic) fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered" or "when the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim." This gives the courts discretion in apportioning attorney's fees. The records do not reveal the exact amount of the unpaid portion of the principal obligation of Uy Tiam to MERTOBANK under Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. SN-Loc-309 dated 30 March 1979. In referring to the last demand letter to Mr. Uy Tiam and the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 82-9303, the public respondent mentions the amount of "P613,339.32, as of January 31, 1982, inclusive of interest commission penalty and bank charges." 23 This is the same amount stated by METROBANK in its Memorandum. 24 However, in summarizing Uy Tiam's outstanding obligation as of 17 July 1987, public respondent states: Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to appellant METROBANK of UTEFS' outstanding obligation in the sum of P2,397,883.68 (as of July 17, 1987) P651,092.82 representing the principal amount, P825,133.54, for past due interest (5-31-82 to 7-17-87) and P921,657.32, for penalty charges at 12% per annum (5-31-82 to 7-1787) as shown in the Statement of Account (Exhibit I). 25 Since the complaint was filed on 18 May 1982, it is obvious that on that date, the outstanding principal obligation of Uy Tiam, secured by the petitioners' Continuing Suretyship Agreements, was less than P613,339.32. Such amount may be fully covered by the Continuing Suretyship Agreement executed by petitioner Dio which stipulates an aggregate principal sum of not exceeding P800,000.00, and partly covered by that of petitioner Uy which pegs his maximum liability at P300,000.00. Consequently, the judgment of the public respondent shall have to be modified to conform to the foregoing exposition, to which extent the instant petition is impressed with partial merit. WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED, but only insofar as the challenged decision has to be modified with respect to the extend of petitioners' liability. As modified, petitioners JACINTO UY DIO and NORBERTO UY are hereby declared liable for and are ordered to pay, up to the maximum limit only of their respective Continuing Suretyship Agreement, the remaining unpaid balance of the principal obligation of UY TIAM or UY TIAM ENTERPRISES & FREIGHT SERVICES under Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. SNLoc-309, dated 30 March 1979, together with the interest due thereon at the legal rate commencing from the date of the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. 82-9303 with Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, as well as the adjudged attorney's fees and costs. All other dispositions in the dispositive portion of the challenged decision not inconsistent with the above are affirmed. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 135462 December 7, 2001

SOUTH CITY HOMES, INC., FORTUNE MOTORS (PHILS.), PALAWAN LUMBER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. BA FINANCE CORPORATION, respondent. PARDO, J.: The Case The case is a petition to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision (as amended by that Order of July 22, 1992) of the lower court in Civil Case No. 21944 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that defendant-appellee South City Homes, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, with Fortune Motors Corporation, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation and Joseph L. G. Chua, the outstanding amounts due under the six (6) drafts and trust receipts, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of filing of this case until said amounts shall have been fully paid, as follows: Date of Draft July 26, 1983 July 27, 1983 July 28, 1983 August 2, 1983 August 5, 1983 August 8, 1983 Amount Balance P244,269.00 967,765.50 1,138,941.00 244,269.00 275,079.00 475,046.10 Due P198,659.52
1

"Prior to the transactions covered by the subject drafts and trust receipts, defendant-appellant Fortune Motors Corporation (Phils.) has been availing of the credit facilities of plaintiff-appellant BA Finance Corporation. On January 17, 1983, Joseph L. G. Chua, President of Fortune Motors Corporation, executed in favor of plaintiff-appellant a Continuing Suretyship Agreement, in which he "jointly and severally unconditionally" guaranteed the "full, faithful and prompt payment and discharge of any and all indebtedness" of Fortune Motors Corporation to BA Finance Corporation (Folder of Exhibits, pp. 2122). "On February 3, 1983, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation represented by Joseph L.G. Chua, George D. Tan, Edgar C. Rodrigueza and Joselito C. Baltazar, executed in favor of plaintiff-appellant a Continuing Suretyship Agreement in which, said corporation "jointly and severally unconditionally" guaranteed the "full, faithful and prompt payment and discharge of any and all indebtedness of Fortune Motors Corporation to BA Finance Corporation (Folder of Exhibits, pp. 19-20). On the same date, South City Homes, Inc. represented by Edgar C. Rodrigueza and Aurelio F. Tablante, likewise executed a Continuing Suretyship Agreement in which said corporation "jointly and severally unconditionally" guaranteed the "full, faithful and prompt payment and discharge of any and all indebtedness" of Fortune Motors Corporation to BA Finance Corporation (Folder of Exhibits, pp. 17-18). "Subsequently, Canlubang Automotive Resources Corporation (CARCO) drew six (6) Drafts in its own favor, payable thirty (30) days after sight, charged to the account of Fortune Motors Corporation, as follows: Date of Draft July 26, 1983 Amount P244,269.00 967,765.50 1,138,941.00 244,269.00 275,079.00 475,046.10

324,767.41 July 27, 1983 1,138,941.00 July 28, 1983 244,269.00 August 2, 1983 275,079.60 August 5, 1983 475,046.10 August 8, 1983 "(Folder of Exhibits, pp. 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 14).

and the attorney's fees and costs of suit. "SO ORDERED."

2

The Facts The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: "The present controversy relates to the rights of an assignee (financing company) of drafts and trust receipts backed up by sureties, in the event of default by the debtor (car dealer) to whom the assignor creditor (car manufacturer) sold and delivered motor vehicles for resale. A consistent ruling on these cases is hereby reiterated: that a surety may secure obligations incurred subsequent to the execution of the surety contract.

"Fortune Motors Corporation thereafter executed trust receipts covering the motor vehicles delivered to it by CARCO under which it agreed to remit to the Entruster (CARCO) the proceeds of any sale and immediately surrender the remaining unsold vehicles (Folder of Exhibits, pp. 2, 5, 7-A, 9, 12 and 15). The drafts and trust receipts were assigned to plaintiff-appellant, under Deeds of Assignment executed by CARCO (Folder of Exhibits, pp. 3, 6, 7-B, 10, 13 and 16). "Upon failure of the defendant-appellant Fortune Motors Corporation to pay the amounts due under the drafts and to remit the proceeds of motor

vehicles sold or to return those remaining unsold in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt agreements, BA Finance Corporation sent demand letter to Edgar C. Rodrigueza, South City Homes, Inc., Aurelio Tablante, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation, Joseph L. G. Chua, George D. Tan and Joselito C. Baltazar (Folder of Exhibits, pp. 29-37). Since the defendants-appellants failed to settle their outstanding account with plaintiffappellant, the latter filed on December 22, 1983 a complaint for a sum of money with prayer for preliminary attachment, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 1, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 83-21944 (Record, pp. 1-12). Plaintiff-appellant filed a surety bond in the amount of P3,391,546.56 and accordingly, Judge Rosalio C. Segundo ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on January 3, 1984 (Record, pp. 37-47). Defendants Fortune Motors Corporation, South City Homes, Inc., Edgar C. Rodrigueza, Aurelio F. Tablante, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation, Joseph L. G. Chua, George D. Tan and Joselito C. Baltazar filed a Motion to Discharge Attachment, which was opposed by plaintiffappellant (Record, pp. 49-56). In an Order dated January 11, 1984, Judge Segundo dissolved the writ of attachment except as against defendant Fortune Motors Corporation and set the said incident for hearing (Record, p. 57). On January 19, 1984, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Therein, they alleged that conventional subrogation effected a novation without the consent of the debtor (Fortune Motors Corporation) and thereby extinguished the latter's liability; that pursuant to the trust receipt transaction, it was premature under P. D. No. 115 to immediately file a complaint for a sum of money as the remedy of the entruster is an action for specific performance; that the suretyship agreements are null and void for having been entered into without an existing principal obligation; and that being such sureties does not make them solidary debtors (Record, pp. 58-64). "After due hearing, the court denied the motion to discharge attachment with respect to defendant Fortune Motors Corporation as well as the motion to dismiss by the defendants (Record, pp. 68 and 87). In their Answer, defendants stressed that their obligations to the creditor (CARCO) was extinguished by the assignment of the drafts and trust receipts to plaintiffappellant without their knowledge and consent, and pursuant to legal provision on conventional subrogation a novation was effected, thereby extinguishing the liability of the sureties; that plaintiff-appellant failed to immediately demand the return of the goods under the trust receipt agreements or exercise the courses of action by the entruster as provided for under P. D. No. 115; and that at the time the suretyship agreements were entered into, there were no principal obligations, thus rendering them null and void. A counterclaim for the award of actual, moral and exemplary damages was prayed for by defendants (Record, pp. 91-110). "During the pre-trial, efforts to reach a compromise was not successful, and in view of the retirement of Judge Rosalio C. Segundo of RTC Manila, Branch 1, the case was-re-raffled off to Branch XXXIII, presided over by Judge Felix V. Barbers (Record, pp. 155-160). "Fortune Motors Corporation filed a motion to lift the writ of attachment covering three (3) vehicles described in the Third-Party Claim filed with the Office of Deputy Sheriff Jorge C. Victorino (RTC, Branch 1) by Fortune Equipment, Inc. which was opposed by plaintiff-appellant (Record, pp. 173-

181). On June 15, 1984, Deputy Sheriff Jorge C. Victorino issued a "Notice of Levy Upon Personal Properties Pursuant to Order of Attachment" which was duly served on defendant Fortune Motors Corporation (Record, pp. 191199). In an Order dated April 28, 1986, the court a quo denied the motion to lift the writ of attachment on three (3) vehicles described in the Third-Party Claim filed by Fortune Equipment Inc. (Record, p. 207). On motion of their respective counsel, the trial court granted the parties time to sit down and appraise the machineries and spare parts owned by defendant Fortune Motors Corporation which are now in the possession of plaintiff corporation by virtue of the attachment. A series of conferences was allowed by the court, as means toward possible compromise agreement. In an Order dated June 2, 1987, the case was returned to Branch I, now presided over by Judge Rebecca G. Salvador (Record, p. 237). The pre-trial period was terminated and the case was set for trial on the merits (Record, p. 259). "Acting on the motion to sell levied properties filed by defendant George D. Tan, the trial court ordered the public sale of the attached properties (Record, p. 406). The court likewise allowed the complaint-in-intervention filed by Fortune Equipment Inc. and South Fortune Motors Corporation who claimed ownership of four (4) vehicles earlier seized and attached (Record, p. 471-475). Plaintiff corporation admitted the allegations contained in the complaint-in-intervention only with respect to one truck so attached but denied the rest of intervenors' allegations (Record, pp. 479-482). Thereafter, the parties submitted their respective pre-trial briefs on the complaint-inintervention, and after the submission of evidence thereon, the case was submitted for decision (Record, pp. 573-577). "On November 25, 1991, the lower court rendered its judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: "1. Ordering defendants Fortune Motors, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation and Joseph Chua, jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff on the July 27, 1983 Draft, the sum of P324,767.41 with the interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of filing of this case, December 21, 1983 until the amount shall have been fully paid; "2. Ordering defendants Fortune Motors, Palawan Manufacturing Corporation and Joseph Chua jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff on the July 26, 1983 Draft, the sum of P198,659.52 with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of filing of this case, until the amount shall have been fully paid; "3. Ordering defendant Fortune Motors, Palawan Manufacturing Corporation and Joseph Chua jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff on the July 28, 1983 Draft the sum of P1,138,941.00 with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of filing of this case, until the amount shall have been fully paid; "4. Ordering defendants Fortune Motors, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation and Joseph Chua jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff on the August 2, 1983 Draft, the sum of P244,269.00 with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of filing of this case, until the amount shall have been fully paid;

"5. Ordering defendants Fortune Motors, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation and Joseph Chua jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff on the August 5, 1983 Draft the sum of P275,079.60 with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the filing of this case, until the amount shall have been fully paid; "6. Ordering defendants Fortune Motors, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation and Joseph Chua jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff on the August 8, 1983 Draft the sum of P475,046.10 with interest thereon at legal rate from the date of the filing of this case, until the amount shall been fully paid; "7. Ordering defendant Fortune Motors, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation and Joseph Chua jointly and severally to pay the sum of P300,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs of this suit; "8. Dismissing plaintiff's complaint against South City Homes, Aurelio Tablante, Joselito Baltazar, George Tan and Edgar Rodrigueza and the latter's counterclaim for lack of basis; "9. Ordering Deputy Sheriff Jorge Victorino to return to Intervenor Fortune Equipment the Mitsubishi Truck Canter with Motor No. 310913 and Chassis No. 513234; "10. Dismissing the complaint-in-intervention in so far as the three other vehicles mentioned in the complaint-in-intervention are concerned for lack of cause of action; "11. Dismissing the complaint-in-intervention against Fortune Motor for lack of basis; and "12. Ordering the parties-in-intervention to bear their respective damages, attorneys fees and the costs of the suit. "Upon execution, the sheriff may cause the judgment to be satisfied out of the properties attached with the exception of one (1) unit Mitsubishi Truck Canter with Motor No. 310913 and Chassis No. 513234, if they be sufficient for that purpose. The officer shall make a return in writing to the court of his proceedings. Whenever the judgment shall have been paid, the officer, upon reasonable demand must return to the judgment debtor the attached properties remaining in his hand, and any of the proceeds of the properties not applied to the judgment. "SO ORDERED. "On two (2) separate motions for reconsideration, one filed by plaintiffsintervenors dated December 18, 1991 and the other by plaintiff dated December 26, 1991, the trial court issued an Order dated July 22, 1992 amending its Decision dated November 25, 1991. Specifically, said Order amended paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof and deleted the last paragraph of the said Decision. "Paragraphs 9 and 10 now read: "9. Ordering Deputy Sheriff Jorge C. Victorino to return to Intervenor Fortune Equipment, Inc. the Mitsubishi Truck Canter with Motor No. 310913 and Chassis No. 513234; Mitsubishi Truck

Canter with Motor No. 4D30-313012 and Chassis No. 513696, and Fuso Truck with Motor No. 006769 and Chassis No. 20756, and to Intervenor South Fortune Motors Corporation the Cimaron Jeepney with Plate No. NET-849; "10. Ordering the plaintiff, in the event the motor vehicles could no longer be returned to pay the estimated value thereof i.e., P750,000.00 for the three trucks, and P5,000.00 for the Cimaron Jeepney, to the plaintiffs-intervenors. "x x x" (Records, pp. 664-665) "Plaintiffs BA Finance Corporation, defendants Fortune Motors Corp. (Phils.) and Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation, and intervenors Fortune Equipment and South Fortune Motors, interposed the present appeal and 3 filed their respective Briefs." On September 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision, the dispositive portion of which is quoted in the opening paragraph of this decision. Hence, this appeal.
4

The Issues The issues presented are: (1) whether the suretyship agreement is valid; (2) whether there was a novation of the obligation so as to extinguish the liability of the sureties; and (3) whether respondent BAFC has a valid cause of action for a sum of money 5 following the drafts and trust receipts transactions. The Court's Ruling On the first issue, petitioners assert that the suretyship agreement they signed is void because there was no principal obligation at the time of signing as the principal obligation was signed six (6) months later. The Civil Code, however, allows a suretyship agreement to secure future loans even if the amount is not yet known. Article 2053 of the Civil Code provides that: "Art. 2053. A guaranty may also be given as security for future debts, the amount of which is not yet known. x x x" In Fortune Motors (Phils.) Corporation v. Court of Appeals , we held: "To fund their acquisition of new vehicles (which are later retailed or resold to the general public), car dealers normally enter into wholesale automotive financing schemes whereby vehicles are delivered by the manufacturer or assembler on the strength of trust receipts or drafts executed by the car dealers, which are backed up by sureties. These trust receipts or drafts are then assigned and/or discounted by the manufacturer to/with financing companies, which assume payment of the vehicles but with the corresponding right to collect such payment from the car dealers and/or the sureties. In this manner, car dealers are able to secure delivery of their stock-in-trade without having to pay cash therefor; manufacturers get paid without any receivables/collection problems; and financing companies earn their margins with the assurance of payment not only from the dealers but also from the sureties. When the vehicles are eventually resold, the car dealers are supposed to pay the financing companies and the business
6

goes merrily on. However, in the event the car dealer defaults in paying the financing company, may the surety escape liability on the legal ground that the obligations were incurred subsequent to the execution of the surety contract? "x x x Of course, a surety is not bound under any particular principal obligation until that principal obligation is born. But there is no theoretical or doctrinal difficulty inherent in saying that the suretyship agreement itself is valid and binding even before the principal obligation intended to be secured thereby is born, any more than there would be in saying that obligations which are subject to a condition precedent are valid and binding before the occurrence of the condition precedent. "Comprehensive or continuing surety agreements are in fact quite commonplace in present day financial and commercial practice. A bank or financing company which anticipates entering into a series of credit transactions with a particular company, commonly requires the projected principal debtor to execute a continuing surety agreement along with its sureties. By executing such an agreement, the principal places itself in a position to enter into the projected series of transactions with its creditor; with such suretyship agreement, there would be no need to execute a separate surety contract or bond for each financing or credit accommodation extended to the principal debtor." Petitioners next posit (second issue) that a novation, as a result of the assignment of the drafts and trust receipts by the creditor (CARCO) in favor of respondent BAFC without the consent of the principal debtor (Fortune Motors), extinguished their liabilities. An assignment of credit is an agreement by virtue of which the owner of a credit, known as the assignor, by a legal cause, such as sale, dacion en pago, exchange or donation, and without the consent of the debtor, transfers his credit and accessory rights to another, known as the assignee, who acquires the power to enforce it to the same extent as the assignor could 7 enforce it against the debtor. As a consequence, the third party steps into the shoes of the original creditor as subrogee of the latter. Petitioners' obligations were not extinguished. Thus: "x x x Moreover, in assignment, the debtor's consent is not essential for the validity of the assignment (Art. 1624 in relation to Art. 1475, Civil Code), his knowledge thereof affecting only the validity of the payment he might make (Article 1626, Civil Code). "Article 1626 also shows that payment of an obligation which is already existing does not depend on the consent of the debtor. It, in effect, mandates that such payment of the existing obligation shall already be made to the new creditor from the time the debtor acquires knowledge of the assignment of the obligation. "The law is clear that the debtor had the obligation to pay and should have paid from the date of notice whether or not he consented. "We have ruled in Sison & Sison vs. Yap Tico and Avancea, 37 Phil. 587 [1918] that definitely, consent is not necessary in order that assignment may fully produce legal effects. Hence, the duty to pay does not depend on the

consent of the debtor. Otherwise, all creditors would be prevented from assigning their credits because of the possibility of the debtor's refusal to give consent. "What the law requires in an assignment of credit is not the consent of the debtor but merely notice to him. A creditor may, therefore, validly assign his credit and its accessories without the debtor's consent (National Investment and Development Co. v. De Los Angeles, 40 SCRA 489 [1971]. The purpose of the notice is only to inform that debtor from the date of the assignment, 8 payment should be made to the assignee and not to the original creditor." Petitioners finally posit (third issue) that as an entruster, respondent BAFC must first demand the return of the unsold vehicles from Fortune Motors Corporation, pursuant to the terms of the trust receipts. Having failed to do so, petitioners had no cause of action whatsoever against Fortune Motors Corporation and the action for collection of sum of money was, therefore, premature. A trust receipt is a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not be able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral, of the 9 merchandise imported or purchased. In the event of default by the entrustee on his obligations under the trust receipt agreement, it is not absolutely necessary that the entruster cancel the trust and take possession of the goods to be able to enforce his rights thereunder. We ruled: "x x x Significantly, the law uses the word "may" in granting to the entruster the right to cancel the trust and take possession of the goods. Consequently, petitioner has the discretion to avail of such right or seek any alternative action, such as a third party claim or a separate civil action which it deems best to protect its right, at any time upon default or failure of the entrustee to 10 comply with any of the terms and conditions of the trust agreement."

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 99398 & 104625 January 26, 2001

RESOLVED, FINALLY, That copies of this resolution be furnished the Commercial Bank & Trust Company of the Philippines, Makati, Metro Manila, for their information. 4 Subsequently, on September 26, 1978, Antonio Roxas Chua and Chester G. Babst executed a Continuing Suretyship,5 whereby they bound themselves jointly and severally liable to pay any existing indebtedness of MULTI to CBTC to the extent of P8,000,000.00 each. 1wphi1.nt Sometime in October 1978, CBTC opened for ELISCON in favor of National Steel Corporation three (3) domestic letters of credit in the amounts of P1,946,805.73,6 P1,702,869.327 and P200,307.72,8 respectively, which ELISCON used to purchase tin black plates from National Steel Corporation. ELISCON defaulted in its obligation to pay the amounts of the letters of credit, leaving an outstanding account, as of October 31, 1982, in the total amount of P3,963,372.08. 9 On December 22, 1980, the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and CBTC entered into a merger, wherein BPI, as the surviving corporation, acquired all the assets and assumed all the liabilities of CBTC.10 Meanwhile, ELISCON encountered financial difficulties and became heavily indebted to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). In order to settle its obligations, ELISCON proposed to convey to DBP by way of dacion en pago all its fixed assets mortgaged with DBP, as payment for its total indebtedness in the amount of P201,181,833.16. On December 28, 1978, ELISCON and DBP executed a Deed of Cession of Property in Payment of Debt. 11 In June 1981, ELISCON called its creditors to a meeting to announce the take-over by DBP of its assets. In October 1981, DBP formally took over the assets of ELISCON, including its indebtedness to BPI. Thereafter, DBP proposed formulas for the settlement of all of ELISCON's obligations to its creditors, but BPI expressly rejected the formula submitted to it for not being acceptable. 12 Consequently, on January 17, 1983, BPI, as successor-in-interest of CBTC, instituted with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 147, a complaint 13 for sum of money against ELISCON, MULTI and Babst, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 49226. ELISCON, in its Answer,14 argued that the complaint was premature since DBP had made serious efforts to settle its obligations with BPI. Babst also filed his Answer alleging that he signed the Continuing Suretyship on the understanding that it covers only obligations which MULTI incurred solely for its benefit and not for any third party liability, and he had no knowledge or information of any transaction between MULTI and ELISCON.15 MULTI, for its part, denied knowledge of the merger between BPI and CBTC, and averred that the guaranty under its board resolution did not cover purchases made by ELISCON in the form of trust receipts. It set up a cross-claim against ELISCON alleging that the latter should be held liable for any judgment which the court may render against it in favor of BPI.16 On February 20, 1987, the trial court rendered its Decision, 17 the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against all the defendants: 1) Ordering defendant ELISCON to pay the plaintiff the amount of P2,795,240.67 due on the promissory note, Annex "A" of the Complaint as of 31 October 1982 and the amount of P3,963,372.08 due on the three (3) domestic letters of credit, also as of 31 October 1982; 2) Ordering defendant ELISCON to pay the plaintiff interests and related charges on the principal of said promissory note of P2,102,232.02 at the rates provided in said note from and after 31 October 1982 until full payment thereof, and on the principal of the three (3) domestic letters of credit of P3,564,349.25 interests and related charges

CHESTER BABST, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC., and PACIFIC MULTI-COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, respondents. x ------------------------------------------------ x ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PACIFIC MULTICOMMERCIAL CORPORATION and CHESTER BABST, respondents. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: These consolidated petitions seek the review of the Decision dated April 29, 1991 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 172821 entitled, "Bank of the Philippine Islands, Plaintiff-Appellee versus Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc., Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation, and Chester G. Babst, Defendants-Appellants." The complaint was commenced principally to enforce payment of a promissory note and three domestic letters of credit which Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc. (ELISCON) executed and opened with the Commercial Bank and Trust Company (CBTC). On June 8, 1973, ELISCON obtained from CBTC a loan in the amount of P 8,015,900.84, with interest at the rate of 14% per annum, evidenced by a promissory note. 2 ELISCON defaulted in its payments, leaving an outstanding indebtedness in the amount of P2,795,240.67 as of October 31, 1982.3 The letters of credit, on the other hand, were opened for ELISCON by CBTC using the credit facilities of Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation (MULTI) with the said bank, pursuant to the Resolution of the Board of Directors of MULTI adopted on August 31, 1977 which reads: WHEREAS, at least 90% of the Company's gross sales is generated by the sale of tinplates manufactured by Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc.; WHEREAS, it is to the best interests of the Company to continue handling said tinplate line; WHEREAS, Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc. has requested the assistance of the Company in obtaining credit facilities to enable it to maintain the present level of its tinplate manufacturing output and the Company is willing to extend said requested assistance; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises --BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, That the PRESIDENT & GENERAL MANAGER, ANTONIO ROXAS CHUA, be, as he is hereby empowered to allow and authorize ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC. to avail and make use of the Credit Line of PACIFIC MULTI-COMMERCIAL CORPORATION with the COMMERCIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Makati, Metro Manila; RESOLVED, FURTHER, That the Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation guarantee, as it does hereby guarantee, solidarily, the payment of the corresponding Letters of Credit upon maturity of the same;

at the rates provided in said letters of credit, from and after 31 October 1982 until full payment; 3) Ordering defendant ELISCON to pay interests at the legal rate on all interests and related charges but unpaid as of the filing of this complaint, until full payment thereof; 4) Ordering defendant ELISCON to pay attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount due under the preceding paragraphs; 5) Ordering defendants Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and defendant Chester Babst to pay, jointly and severally with defendant ELISCON, the total sum of P3,963,372.08 due on the three (3) domestic letters of credit as of 31 October 1982 with interests and related charges on the principal amount of P3,963,372.08 at the rates provided in said letters of credit from 30 October 1982 until fully paid, but to the extent of not more than P8,000,000.00 in the case of defendant Chester Babst; 6) Ordering defendant Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and defendant Chester Babst to pay, jointly and severally plaintiff interests at the legal rate on all interests and related charges already accrued but unpaid on said three (3) domestic letters of credit as of the date of the filing of this Complaint until full payment thereof; 7) Ordering defendant Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and defendant Chester Babst to pay, jointly and severally, attorney's fees of not less than 10% of the total amount due under paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof. With costs. SO ORDERED. In due time, ELISCON, MULTI and Babst filed their respective notices of appeal. 18 On April 29, 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered the appealed Decision as follows: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is MODIFIED, to now read (with the underlining to show the principal changes from the decision of the lower court) thus: 1) Ordering appellant ELISCON to pay the appellee BPI the amount of P2,731,005.60 due on the promissory note, Annex "A" of the Complaint as of 31 October 1982 and the amount of P3,963,372.08 due on the three (3) domestic letters of credit, also as of 31 October 1982; 2) Ordering appellant ELISCON to pay the appellee BPI interests and related charges on the principal of said promissory note of P2,102,232.02 at the rates provided in said note from and after 31 October 1982 until full payment thereof, and on the principal of the three (3) domestic letters of credit of P3,564,349.25 interests and related charges at the rates provided in said letters of credit, from and after 31 October 1982 until full payment; 3) Ordering appellant ELISCON to pay appellee BPI interest at the legal rate on all interests and related charges but unpaid as of the filing of this complaint, until full payment thereof; 4) Ordering appellant Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and appellant Chester G. Babst to pay appellee BPI, jointly and severally with appellant ELISCON, the total sum of P3,963,372.08 due on the three (3) domestic letters of credit as of 31 October 1982 with interest and .related charges on the principal amount of P3,963,372.08 at the rates provided in said letters of credit from 30 October 1982 until fully paid, but to the extent of not more than P8,000,000.00 in the case of defendant Chester Babst; 5) Ordering appellant Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and defendant Chester Babst to pay, jointly and severally, appellee BPI interests at the legal rate on all interests and related charges already accrued but unpaid on said three (3) domestic letters of credit as of the date of the filing of this Complaint until full payment thereof and the plaintiff's lawyer's fees in the nominal amount of P200.000.00;

6) Ordering appellant ELISCON to reimburse appellants Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and Chester Babst whatever amount they shall have paid in said Eliscon's behalf particularly referring to the three (3) letters of credit as of 31 October 1982 and other related charges. No costs. SO ORDERED.19 ELISCON filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the Court of Appeals which was, however, denied in a Resolution dated March 9, 1992.20 Subsequently, ELISCON filed a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 104625, on the following grounds: A. THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM PETITIONER ELISCON THE LATTER'S OBLIGATION WITH COMMERCIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (CBTC) B. THERE WAS A VALID NOVATION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ELISCON AND BPI THERE BEING A PRIOR CONSENT TO AND APPROVAL BY BPI OF THE SUBSTITUTION BY DBP AS DEBTOR IN LIEU OF THE ORIGINAL DEBTOR, ELISCON, THEREBY RELEASING ELISCON FROM ITS OBLIGATION TO BPI. C. PACIFIC MULTI COMMERCIAL CORPORATION AND CHESTER BABST CANNOT LAWFULLY RECOVER FROM ELISCON WHATEVER AMOUNT THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY TO BPI AS SURETIES OF ELISCON'S OBLIGATION TO BPI; THEIR CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DIRECTED AGAINST DBP AS THE NEWLY SUBSTITUTED DEBTOR IN PLACE OF ELISCON. D. THE DBP TAKEOVER OF THE ENTIRE ELISCON AMOUNTED TO AN ACT OF GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS A FORTUITOUS EVENT EXCULPATING ELISCON FROM FURTHER LIABILITIES TO RESPONDENT BPI. E. PETITIONER ELISCON SHOULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE TO PAY RESPONDENT BPI THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION:21 BPI filed its Comment22 raising the following arguments, to wit: 1. Respondent BPI is legally entitled to recover from ELISCON, MULTI and Babst the past due obligations with CBTC prior to the merger of BPI with CBTC. 2. BPI did not give its consent to the DBP take-over of ELISCON. Hence, no valid novation has been effected. 3. Express consent of creditor to substitution should be recorded in the books. 4. Petitioner Chester G. Babst and respondent MULTI are jointly and solidarily liable to BPI for the unpaid letters of credit of ELISCON. 5. The question of the liability of ELISCON to BPI has been clearly established. 6. Since MULTI and Chester G. Babst are guarantors of the debts incurred by ELISCON, they may recover from the latter what they may have paid for on account of that guaranty. Chester Babst filed a Comment with Manifestation, 23 wherein he contends that the suretyship agreement he executed with Antonio Roxas Chua was in favor of MULTI; and that there is nothing therein which authorizes MULTI, in turn, to guarantee the obligations of ELISCON. In its Comment,24 MULTI maintained that inasmuch as BPI had full knowledge of the purpose of the meeting in June 1981, wherein the takeover by DBP of ELISCON was announced, it was incumbent upon the said bank to formally communicate its objection to the assumption of ELISCON's liabilities by DBP in answer to the call for the meeting. Moreover, there was no showing that the availment by ELISCON of MULTI's credit facilities with CBTC, which was

supposedly guaranteed by Antonio Roxas Chua, was indeed authorized by the latter pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Directors of MULTI. In compliance with this Court's Resolution dated March 17, 1993, 25 the parties submitted their respective memoranda. Meanwhile, in a petition for review filed with this Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 99398, Chester Babst alleged that the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion when: 1. IT AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURT'S HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO NOVATION INASMUCH AS RESPONDENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (OR BPI) HAD PRIOR CONSENT TO AND APPROVAL OF THE SUBSTITUTION AS DEBTOR BY THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (OR DBP) IN THE PLACE OF ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC. (OR ELISCON) IN THE LATTER 'S OBLIGATION TO BPI. 2. IT CONFIRMED THE LOWER COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO IMPLIED CONSENT OF THE CREDITOR BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO THE SUBSTITUTION BY DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES OF THE ORIGINAL DEBTOR ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC. 3. IT AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURT'S FINDING OF LACK OF MERIT OF THE CONTENTION OF ELISCON THAT THE FAILURE OF THE OFFICER OF BPI, WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE MEETING OF ELISCON'S CREDITORS IN JUNE 1981 TO VOICE HIS OBJECTION TO THE ANNOUNCED TAKEOVER BY THE DBP OF THE ASSETS OF ELISCON AND ASSUMPTION OF ITS LIABILITIES, CONSTITUTED AN IMPLIED CONSENT TO THE ASSUMPTION BY DBP OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF ELISCON TO BPI. 4. IN NOT TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THE DBP TAKEOVER OF THE ENTIRE ELISCON WAS AN ACT OF GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTING A FORTUITOUS EVENT EXCULPATING ELISCON FROM ANY LIABILITY TO BPI. 5. IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DACION EN PAGO BETWEEN DBP AND BPI RELIEVED ELISCON, MULTI AND BABST OF ANY LIABILITY TO BPI. 6. IN FINDING THAT MULTI AND BABST BOUND THEMSELVES SOLIDARILY WITH ELISCON WITH RESPECT TO THE OBLIGATION INVOLVED HERE. 7. IN RENDERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF BPI AND AGAINST ELISCON ORDERING THE LATTER TO PAY THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE DECISION; AND ORDERING PETITIONER AND MULTI TO PAY SAID AMOUNTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY WITH ELISCON.26 Petitioner Babst alleged that DBP sold all of ELISCON's assets to the National Development Company, for the latter to take over and continue the operation of its business. On September 11, 1981, the Board of Governors of the DBP adopted Resolution No. 2817 which states that DBP shall enter into a contractual arrangement with NDC for the latter to pay ELISCON's creditors, including BPI in the amount of P4,015,534.54. This was followed by a Memorandum of Agreement executed on May 4,1983 by and between DBP and NDC, wherein they stipulated, inter alia, that NDC shall pay to ELISCON's creditors, through DBP, the amount of P299,524,700.00. Among the creditors mentioned in the agreement was BPI, with a listed credit of P4,015,534.54. Furthermore, petitioner Babst averred that the assets of ELISCON which were acquired by the DBP, and later transferred to the NDC, were placed under the Asset Privatization Trust pursuant to Proclamation No. 50, issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino on December 8, 1986. In its Comment,27 BPI countered that by virtue of its merger with CBTC, it acquired all the latter's rights and interest including all receivables; that in order to effect a valid novation by substitution of debtors, the consent of the creditor must be express; that in addition, the consent of BPI must

appear in its books, it being a private corporation; that BPI intentionally did not consent to the assumption by DBP of the obligations of ELISCON because it wanted to preserve intact its causes of action and legal recourse against Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and Babst as sureties of ELISCON and not of DBP; that MULTI expressly bound itself solidarily for ELISCON's obligations to CBTC in its Resolution wherein it allowed the latter to use its credit facilities; and that the suretyship agreement executed by Babst does not exclude liabilities incurred by MULTI on behalf of third parties, such as ELISCON. ELISCON likewise filed a Comment,28 wherein it manifested that of the seven errors raised by Babst in his petition, six are arguments which ELISCON itself raised in its previous pleadings. It is only the sixth assigned error --- that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that MULTI and Babst bound themselves solidarily with ELISCON --- that ELISCON takes exception to. More particularly, ELISCON pointed out the contradictory positions taken by Babst in admitting that he bound himself to pay the indebtedness of MULTI, while at the same time completely disavowing and denying any such obligation. It stressed that should MULTI or Babst be finally adjudged liable under the suretyship agreement, they cannot lawfully recover from ELISCON, but from the DBP which had been substituted as the new debtor. MULTI filed its Comrnent,29 admitting the correctness of the petition and adopting the Comment of ELISCON insofar as it is not inconsistent with the positions of Babst and MULTI. At the outset, the preliminary issue of BPI's right of action must first be addressed. ELISCON and MULTI assail BPI's legal capacity to recover their obligation to CBTC. However, there is no question that there was a valid merger between BPI and CBTC. It is settled that in the merger of two existing corporations, one of the corporations survives and continues the business, while the other is dissolved and all its rights, properties and liabilities are acquired by the surviving corporation.30 Hence, BPI has a right to institute the case a quo. We now come to the primordial issue in this case whether or not BPI consented to the assumption by DBP of the obligations of ELISCON. Article 1293 of the Civil Code provides: Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, may be made even without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor. Payment by the new debtor gives him the rights mentioned in articles 1236 and 1237. BPI contends that in order to have a valid novation, there must be an express consent of the creditor. In the case of Testate Estate of Mota, et al. v. Serra,31 this Court held: It should be noted that in order to give novation its legal effect, the law requires that the creditor should consent to the substitution of a new debtor. This consent must be given expressly for the reason that, since novation extinguishes the personality of the first debtor who is to be substituted by a new one, it implies on the part of the creditor a waiver of the right that he had before the novation, which waiver must be express under the principle of renuntiatio non proesumitur, recognized by the law in declaring that a waiver of right may not be performed [should read: presumed] unless the will to waive is indisputably shown by him who holds the right.32 The import of the foregoing ruling, however, was explained and clarified by this Court in the later case of Asia Banking Corporation v. EIser33 in this wise: The aforecited article 1205 [now 1293] of the Civil Code does not state that the creditor's consent to the substitution of the new debtor for the old be express, or given at the time of the substitution, and the Supreme Court of Spain, in its judgment of June 16, 1908, construing said article, laid down the doctrine that "article 1205 of the Civil Code does not mean or require that the creditor's consent to the change of debtors must be given simultaneously with the debtor's consent to the substitution, its evident purpose being to preserve the creditor's full right, it is sufficient that the latter's consent be given at any time and in any form whatever, while the agreement of the debtors subsists." The same rule is stated in the Enciclopedia

Juridica Espaola, volume 23, page 503, which reads: "'The rule that this kind of novation, like all others, must be express, is not absolute; for the existence of the consent may well be inferred from the act of the creditor, since volition may as well be expressed by deeds as by words." The understanding between Henry W. Elser and the principal director of Yangco, Rosenstock & Co., Inc., with respect to Luis R. Yangco's stock in said corporation, and the acts of the board of directors after Henry W. Elser had acquired said shares, in substituting the latter for Luis R. Yangco, are a clear and unmistakable expression of its consent. When this court said in the case of Estate of Mota vs. Serra (47 Phil. 464), that the creditor's express consent is necessary in order that there may be a novation of a contract by the substitution of debtors, it did not wish to convey the impression that the word "express" was to be given an unqualified meaning. as indicated in the authorities or cases. both Spanish and American, cited in said decision.34 Subsequently, in the case of Vda. e Hijos de Pio Barretto y Cia., Inc. v. Albo & Sevilla, Inc., et al.,35 this Court reiterated the rule that there can be implied consent of the creditor to the substitution of debtors. In the case at bar, Babst, MULTI and ELISCON all maintain that due to the failure of BPI to register its objection to the take-over by DBP of ELISCON's assets, at the creditors' meeting held in June 1981 and thereafter, it is deemed to have consented to the substitution of DBP for ELISCON as debtor. We find merit in the argument. Indeed, there exist clear indications that BPI was aware of the assumption by DBP of the obligations of ELISCON. In fact, BPI admits that --"the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), for a time, had .proposed a formula for the settlement of Eliscon's past obligations to its creditors, including the plaintiff [BPI], but the formula was expressly rejected by the plaintiff as not acceptable (long before the filing of the complaint at bar)."36 The Court of Appeals held that even if the account officer who attended the June 1981 creditors' meeting had expressed consent to the assumption by DBP of ELISCON' s debts, such consent would not bind BPI for lack of a specific authority therefor. In its petition, ELISCON counters that the mere presence of the account officer at the meeting necessarily meant that he was authorized to represent BPI in that creditors' meeting. Moreover, BPI did not object to the substitution of debtors, although it objected to the payment formula submitted by DBP. Indeed, the authority granted by BPI to its account officer to attend the creditors' meeting was an authority to represent the bank, such that when he failed to object to the substitution of debtors, he did so on behalf of and for the bank. Even granting arguendo that the said account officer was not so empowered, BPI could have subsequently registered its objection to the substitution, especially after it had already learned that DBP had taken over the assets and assumed the liabilities of ELISCON. Its failure to do so can only mean an acquiescence in the assumption by DBP of ELISCON's obligations. As repeatedly pointed out by ELISCON and MULTI, BPI's objection was to the proposed payment formula, not to the substitution itself. BPI gives no cogent reason in withholding its consent to the substitution, other than its desire to preserve its causes of action and legal recourse against the sureties of ELISCON. It must be remembered, however, that while a surety is solidarily liable with the principal debtor, his obligation to pay only arises upon the principal debtor's failure or refusal to pay. A contract of surety is an accessory promise by which a person binds himself for another already bound, and agrees with the creditor to satisfy the obligation if the debtor does not.37 A surety is an insurer of the debt; he promises to pay the principal's debt if the principal will not pay. 38 In the case at bar, there was no indication that the principal debtor will default in payment. In fact, DBP, which had stepped into the shoes of ELISCON, was capable of payment. Its authorized capital stock was increased by the government. 39 More importantly, the National Development Company took over the business of ELISCON and undertook to pay ELISCON's creditors, and earmarked for that purpose the amount of P4,015,534.54 for payment to BPI.40

Notwithstanding the fact that a reliable institution backed by government funds was offering to pay ELISCON's debts, not as mere surety but as substitute principal debtor, BPI, for reasons known only to itself, insisted in going after the sureties. The course of action chosen taxes the credulity of this Court. At the very least, suffice it to state that BPI's actuation in this regard runs counter to the good faith covenant in contractual relations, provided for by the Civil Code, to wit: ART. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.1wphi1.nt ART. 1159. Obligations arising from contract have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. BPI's conduct evinced a clear and unmistakable consent to the substitution of DBP for ELISCON as debtor. Hence, there was a valid novation which resulted in the release of ELISCON from its obligation to BPI, whose cause of action should be directed against DBP as the new debtor. Novation, in its broad concept, may either be extinctive or modificatory .It is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated by the creation of a new obligation that takes the place of the former; it is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement. An extinctive novation results either by changing the object or principal conditions (objective or real), or by substituting the person of the debtor or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor (subjective or personal). Under this mode, novation would have dual functions one to extinguish an existing obligation, the other to substitute a new one in its place requiring a conflux of four essential requisites, (1) a previous valid obligation; (2) an agreement of all parties concerned to a new contract; (3) the extinguishment of the old obligation; and (4) the birth of a valid new obligation.41 The original obligation having been extinguished, the contracts of suretyship executed separately by Babst and MULTI, being accessory obligations, are likewise extinguished. 42 Hence, BPI should enforce its cause of action against DBP. It should be stressed that notwithstanding the lapse of time within which these cases have remained pending, the prescriptive period for BPI to file its action was interrupted when it filed Civil Case No. 49226. 43 WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are GRANTED. The appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals, which held ELISCON, MULTI and Babst solidarily liable for payment to BPI of the promissory note and letters of credit, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. BPI's complaint against ELISCON, MULTI and Babst is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

on the findings of the court a quo that the filing of the complaint against herein petitioner Estrella Palmares, to the exclusion of the Azarraga spouses, amounted to a discharge of a prior party; that the offer made by petitioner to pay the obligation is considered a valid tender of payment sufficient to discharge a person's secondary liability on the instrument; as co-maker, is only secondarily liable on the instrument; and that the promissory note is a contract of adhesion. Respondent Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision of the trial court, and rendered judgment declaring herein petitioner Palmares liable to pay respondent corporation: 1. The sum of P13,700.00 representing the outstanding balance still due and owing with interest at six percent (6%) per month computed from the date the loan was contracted until fully paid; 2. The sum equivalent to the stipulated penalty of three percent (3%) per month, of the outstanding balance; 3. Attorney's fees at 25% of the total amount due per stipulations; 4. Plus costs of suit. 7 Contrary to the findings of the trial court, respondent appellate court declared that petitioner Palmares is a surety since she bound herself to be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the principal debtors, the Azarraga spouses, when she signed as a comaker. As such, petitioner is primarily liable on the note and hence may be sued by the creditor corporation for the entire obligation. It also adverted to the fact that petitioner admitted her liability in her Answer although she claims that the Azarraga spouses should have been impleaded. Respondent court ordered the imposition of the stipulated 6% interest and 3% penalty charges on the ground that the Usury Law is no longer enforceable pursuant to Central Bank Circular No. 905. Finally, it rationalized that even if the promissory note were to be considered as a contract of adhesion, the same is not entirely prohibited because the one who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. Hence this petition for review on certiorari wherein it is asserted that: A. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Palmares acted as surety and is therefore solidarily liable to pay the promissory note. 1. The terms of the promissory note are vague. Its conflicting provisions do not establish Palmares' solidary liability. 2. The promissory note contains provisions which establish the co-maker's liability as that of a guarantor. 3. There is no sufficient basis for concluding that Palmares' liability is solidary. 4. The promissory note is a contract of adhesion and should be construed against M. B. Lending Corporation. 5. Palmares cannot be compelled to pay the loan at this point. B. Assuming that Palmares' liability is solidary, the Court of Appeals erred in strictly imposing the interests and penalty charges on the outstanding balance of the promissory note. The foregoing contentions of petitioner are denied and contradicted in their material points by respondent corporation. They are further refuted by accepted doctrines in the American jurisdiction after which we patterned our statutory law on surety and guaranty. This case then affords us the opportunity to make an extended exposition on the ramifications of

G.R. No. 126490 March 31, 1998 ESTRELLA PALMARES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and M.B. LENDING CORPORATION, respondents.

REGALADO, J.: Where a party signs a promissory note as a co-maker and binds herself to be jointly and severally liable with the principal debtor in case the latter defaults in the payment of the loan, is such undertaking of the former deemed to be that of a surety as an insurer of the debt, or of a guarantor who warrants the solvency of the debtor? Pursuant to a promissory note dated March 13, 1990, private respondent M.B. Lending Corporation extended a loan to the spouses Osmea and Merlyn Azarraga, together with petitioner Estrella Palmares, in the amount of P30,000.00 payable on or before May 12, 1990, with compounded interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be computed every 30 days from the date thereof. 1 On four occasions after the execution of the promissory note and even after the loan matured, petitioner and the Azarraga spouses were able to pay a total of P16,300.00, thereby leaving a balance of P13,700.00. No payments were made after the last payment on September 26, 1991. 2 Consequently, on the basis of petitioner's solidary liability under the promissory note, respondent corporation filed a complaint 3 against petitioner Palmares as the lone partydefendant, to the exclusion of the principal debtors, allegedly by reason of the insolvency of the latter. In her Amended Answer with Counterclaim, 4 petitioner alleged that sometime in August 1990, immediately after the loan matured, she offered to settle the obligation with respondent corporation but the latter informed her that they would try to collect from the spouses Azarraga and that she need not worry about it; that there has already been a partial payment in the amount of P17,010.00; that the interest of 6% per month compounded at the same rate per month, as well as the penalty charges of 3% per month, are usurious and unconscionable; and that while she agrees to be liable on the note but only upon default of the principal debtor, respondent corporation acted in bad faith in suing her alone without including the Azarragas when they were the only ones who benefited from the proceeds of the loan. During the pre-trial conference, the parties submitted the following issues for the resolution of the trial court: (1) what the rate of interest, penalty and damages should be; (2) whether the liability of the defendant (herein petitioner) is primary or subsidiary; and (3) whether the defendant Estrella Palmares is only a guarantor with a subsidiary liability and not a comaker with primary liability. 5 Thereafter, the parties agreed to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings filed and the memoranda to be submitted by them. On November 26, 1992, the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to the filing of a separate action for a sum of money against the spouses Osmea and Merlyn Azarraga who are primarily liable on the instrument. 6 This was based

these two specialized contracts, for such guidance as may be taken therefrom in similar local controversies in the future. The basis of petitioner Palmares' liability under the promissory note is expressed in this wise: ATTENTION TO CO-MAKERS: PLEASE READ WELL I, Mrs. Estrella Palmares, as the Co-maker of the above-quoted loan, have fully understood the contents of this Promissory Note for Short-Term Loan: That as Co-maker, I am fully aware that I shall be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the above principal maker of this note; That in fact, I hereby agree that M.B. LENDING CORPORATION may demand payment of the above loan from me in case the principal maker, Mrs. Merlyn Azarraga defaults in the payment of the note subject to the same conditions above-contained. 8 Petitioner contends that the provisions of the second and third paragraph are conflicting in that while the second paragraph seems to define her liability as that of a surety which is joint and solidary with the principal maker, on the other hand, under the third paragraph her liability is actually that of a mere guarantor because she bound herself to fulfill the obligation only in case the principal debtor should fail to do so, which is the essence of a contract of guaranty. More simply stated, although the second paragraph says that she is liable as a surety, the third paragraph defines the nature of her liability as that of a guarantor. According to petitioner, these are two conflicting provisions in the promissory note and the rule is that clauses in the contract should be interpreted in relation to one another and not by parts. In other words, the second paragraph should not be taken in isolation, but should be read in relation to the third paragraph. In an attempt to reconcile the supposed conflict between the two provisions, petitioner avers that she could be held liable only as a guarantor for several reasons. First, the words "jointly and severally or solidarily liable" used in the second paragraph are technical and legal terms which are not fully appreciated by an ordinary layman like herein petitioner, a 65-year old housewife who is likely to enter into such transactions without fully realizing the nature and extent of her liability. On the contrary, the wordings used in the third paragraph are easier to comprehend. Second, the law looks upon the contract of suretyship with a jealous eye and the rule is that the obligation of the surety cannot be extended by implication beyond specified limits, taking into consideration the peculiar nature of a surety agreement which holds the surety liable despite the absence of any direct consideration received from either the principal obligor or the creditor. Third, the promissory note is a contract of adhesion since it was prepared by respondent M.B. Lending Corporation. The note was brought to petitioner partially filled up, the contents thereof were never explained to her, and her only participation was to sign thereon. Thus, any apparent ambiguity in the contract should be strictly construed against private respondent pursuant to Art. 1377 of the Civil Code. 9 Petitioner accordingly concludes that her liability should be deemed restricted by the clause in the third paragraph of the promissory note to be that of a guarantor. Moreover, petitioner submits that she cannot as yet be compelled to pay the loan because the principal debtors cannot be considered in default in the absence of a judicial or extrajudicial demand. It is true that the complaint alleges the fact of demand, but the purported demand letters were never attached to the pleadings filed by private respondent before the trial court. And, while petitioner may have admitted in her Amended Answer that she received a demand letter from respondent corporation sometime in 1990, the same did not effectively put her or the principal debtors in default for the simple reason that the latter

subsequently made a partial payment on the loan in September, 1991, a fact which was never controverted by herein private respondent. Finally, it is argued that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in awarding the amount of P2,745,483.39 in favor of private respondent when, in truth and in fact, the outstanding balance of the loan is only P13,700.00. Where the interest charged on the loan is exorbitant, iniquitous or unconscionable, and the obligation has been partially complied with, the court may equitably reduce the penalty 10 on grounds of substantial justice. More importantly, respondent corporation never refuted petitioner's allegation that immediately after the loan matured, she informed said respondent of her desire to settle the obligation. The court should, therefore, mitigate the damages to be paid since petitioner has shown a sincere desire for a compromise. 11 After a judicious evaluation of the arguments of the parties, we are constrained to dismiss the petition for lack of merit, but to except therefrom the issue anent the propriety of the monetary award adjudged to herein respondent corporation. At the outset, let it here be stressed that even assuming arguendo that the promissory note executed between the parties is a contract of adhesion, it has been the consistent holding of the Court that contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se and that on numerous occasions the binding effects thereof have been upheld. The peculiar nature of such contracts necessitate a close scrutiny of the factual milieu to which the provisions are intended to apply. Hence, just as consistently and unhesitatingly, but without categorically invalidating such contracts, the Court has construed obscurities and ambiguities in the restrictive provisions of contracts of adhesion strictly albeit not unreasonably against the drafter thereof when justified in light of the operative facts and surrounding circumstances. 12 The factual scenario obtaining in the case before us warrants a liberal application of the rule in favor of respondent corporation. The Civil Code pertinently provides: Art. 2047. By guaranty, a person called the guarantor binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such case the contract is called a suretyship. It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control. 13 In the case at bar, petitioner expressly bound herself to be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the principal maker of the note. The terms of the contract are clear, explicit and unequivocal that petitioner's liability is that of a surety. Her pretension that the terms "jointly and severally or solidarily liable" contained in the second paragraph of her contract are technical and legal terms which could not be easily understood by an ordinary layman like her is diametrically opposed to her manifestation in the contract that she "fully understood the contents" of the promissory note and that she is "fully aware" of her solidary liability with the principal maker. Petitioner admits that she voluntarily affixed her signature thereto; ergo, she cannot now be heard to claim otherwise. Any reference to the existence of fraud is unavailing. Fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate. Petitioner's attempt to prove fraud must, therefore, fail as it was evidenced only by her own uncorroborated and, expectedly, self-serving allegations. 14 Having entered into the contract with full knowledge of its terms and conditions, petitioner is estopped to assert that she did so under a misapprehension or in ignorance of their legal

effect, or as to the legal effect of the undertaking. 15 The rule that ignorance of the contents of an instrument does not ordinarily affect the liability of one who signs it also applies to contracts of suretyship. And the mistake of a surety as to the legal effect of her obligation is ordinarily no reason for relieving her of liability. 16 Petitioner would like to make capital of the fact that although she obligated herself to be jointly and severally liable with the principal maker, her liability is deemed restricted by the provisions of the third paragraph of her contract wherein she agreed "that M.B. Lending Corporation may demand payment of the above loan from me in case the principal maker, Mrs. Merlyn Azarraga defaults in the payment of the note," which makes her contract one of guaranty and not suretyship. The purported discordance is more apparent than real. A surety is an insurer of the debt, whereas a guarantor is an insurer of the solvency of the debtor. 17 A suretyship is an undertaking that the debt shall be paid; a guaranty, an undertaking that the debtor shall pay. 18 Stated differently, a surety promises to pay the principal's debt if the principal will not pay, while a guarantor agrees that the creditor, after proceeding against the principal, may proceed against the guarantor if the principal is unable to pay. 19 A surety binds himself to perform if the principal does not, without regard to his ability to do so. A guarantor, on the other hand, does not contract that the principal will pay, but simply that he is able to do so. 20 In other words, a surety undertakes directly for the payment and is so responsible at once if the principal debtor makes default, while a guarantor contracts to pay if, by the use of due diligence, the debt cannot be made out of the principal debtor. 21 Quintessentially, the undertaking to pay upon default of the principal debtor does not automatically remove it from the ambit of a contract of suretyship. The second and third paragraphs of the aforequoted portion of the promissory note do not contain any other condition for the enforcement of respondent corporation's right against petitioner. It has not been shown, either in the contract or the pleadings, that respondent corporation agreed to proceed against herein petitioner only if and when the defaulting principal has become insolvent. A contract of suretyship, to repeat, is that wherein one lends his credit by joining in the principal debtor's obligation, so as to render himself directly and primarily responsible with him, and without reference to the solvency of the principal. 22 In a desperate effort to exonerate herself from liability, petitioner erroneously invokes the rule on strictissimi juris, which holds that when the meaning of a contract of indemnity or guaranty has once been judicially determined under the rule of reasonable construction applicable to all written contracts, then the liability of the surety, under his contract, as thus interpreted and construed, is not to be extended beyond its strict meaning. 23 The rule, however, will apply only after it has been definitely ascertained that the contract is one of suretyship and not a contract of guaranty. It cannot be used as an aid in determining whether a party's undertaking is that of a surety or a guarantor. Prescinding from these jurisprudential authorities, there can be no doubt that the stipulation contained in the third paragraph of the controverted suretyship contract merely elucidated on and made more specific the obligation of petitioner as generally defined in the second paragraph thereof. Resultantly, the theory advanced by petitioner, that she is merely a guarantor because her liability attaches only upon default of the principal debtor, must necessarily fail for being incongruent with the judicial pronouncements adverted to above. It is a well-entrenched rule that in order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall also be principally considered. 24 Several attendant factors in that genre lend support to our finding that petitioner is a surety. For one, when petitioner was informed about the failure of the principal debtor to pay the loan, she immediately offered to settle the account with respondent corporation. Obviously, in her mind, she knew that she was directly and primarily liable upon default of

her principal. For another, and this is most revealing, petitioner presented the receipts of the payments already made, from the time of initial payment up to the last, which were all issued in her name and of the Azarraga spouses. 25 This can only be construed to mean that the payments made by the principal debtors were considered by respondent corporation as creditable directly upon the account and inuring to the benefit of petitioner. The concomitant and simultaneous compliance of petitioner's obligation with that of her principals only goes to show that, from the very start, petitioner considered herself equally bound by the contract of the principal makers. In this regard, we need only to reiterate the rule that a surety is bound equally and absolutely with the principal, 26 and as such is deemed an original promisor and debtor from the beginning. 27 This is because in suretyship there is but one contract, and the surety is bound by the same agreement which binds the principal. 28 In essence, the contract of a surety starts with the agreement, 29 which is precisely the situation obtaining in this case before the Court. It will further be observed that petitioner's undertaking as co-maker immediately follows the terms and conditions stipulated between respondent corporation, as creditor, and the principal obligors. A surety is usually bound with his principal by the same instrument, executed at the same time and upon the same consideration; he is an original debtor, and his liability is immediate and direct. 30 Thus, it has been held that where a written agreement on the same sheet of paper with and immediately following the principal contract between the buyer and seller is executed simultaneously therewith, providing that the signers of the agreement agreed to the terms of the principal contract, the signers were "sureties" jointly liable with the buyer. 31 A surety usually enters into the same obligation as that of his principal, and the signatures of both usually appear upon the same instrument, and the same consideration usually supports the obligation for both the principal and the surety. 32 There is no merit in petitioner's contention that the complaint was prematurely filed because the principal debtors cannot as yet be considered in default, there having been no judicial or extrajudicial demand made by respondent corporation. Petitioner has agreed that respondent corporation may demand payment of the loan from her in case the principal maker defaults, subject to the same conditions expressed in the promissory note. Significantly, paragraph (G) of the note states that "should I fail to pay in accordance with the above schedule of payment, I hereby waive my right to notice and demand." Hence, demand by the creditor is no longer necessary in order that delay may exist since the contract itself already expressly so declares. 33 As a surety, petitioner is equally bound by such waiver. Even if it were otherwise, demand on the sureties is not necessary before bringing suit against them, since the commencement of the suit is a sufficient demand. 34 On this point, it may be worth mentioning that a surety is not even entitled, as a matter of right, to be given notice of the principal's default. Inasmuch as the creditor owes no duty of active diligence to take care of the interest of the surety, his mere failure to voluntarily give information to the surety of the default of the principal cannot have the effect of discharging the surety. The surety is bound to take notice of the principal's default and to perform the obligation. He cannot complain that the creditor has not notified him in the absence of a special agreement to that effect in the contract of suretyship. 35 The alleged failure of respondent corporation to prove the fact of demand on the principal debtors, by not attaching copies thereof to its pleadings, is likewise immaterial. In the absence of a statutory or contractual requirement, it is not necessary that payment or performance of his obligation be first demanded of the principal, especially where demand would have been useless; nor is it a requisite, before proceeding against the sureties, that the principal be called on to account. 36 The underlying principle therefor is that a suretyship is a direct contract to pay the debt of another. A surety is liable as much as his

principal is liable, and absolutely liable as soon as default is made, without any demand upon the principal whatsoever or any notice of default. 37 As an original promisor and debtor from the beginning, he is held ordinarily to know every default of his principal. 38 Petitioner questions the propriety of the filing of a complaint solely against her to the exclusion of the principal debtors who allegedly were the only ones who benefited from the proceeds of the loan. What petitioner is trying to imply is that the creditor, herein respondent corporation, should have proceeded first against the principal before suing on her obligation as surety. We disagree. A creditor's right to proceed against the surety exists independently of his right to proceed against the principal. 39 Under Article 1216 of the Civil Code, the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The rule, therefore, is that if the obligation is joint and several, the creditor has the right to proceed even against the surety alone. 40 Since, generally, it is not necessary for the creditor to proceed against a principal in order to hold the surety liable, where, by the terms of the contract, the obligation of the surety is the same that of the principal, then soon as the principal is in default, the surety is likewise in default, and may be sued immediately and before any proceedings are had against the principal. 41 Perforce, in accordance with the rule that, in the absence of statute or agreement otherwise, a surety is primarily liable, and with the rule that his proper remedy is to pay the debt and pursue the principal for reimbursement, the surety cannot at law, unless permitted by statute and in the absence of any agreement limiting the application of the security, require the creditor or obligee, before proceeding against the surety, to resort to and exhaust his remedies against the principal, particularly where both principal and surety are equally bound. 42 We agree with respondent corporation that its mere failure to immediately sue petitioner on her obligation does not release her from liability. Where a creditor refrains from proceeding against the principal, the surety is not exonerated. In other words, mere want of diligence or forbearance does not affect the creditor's rights vis-a-vis the surety, unless the surety requires him by appropriate notice to sue on the obligation. Such gratuitous indulgence of the principal does not discharge the surety whether given at the principal's request or without it, and whether it is yielded by the creditor through sympathy or from an inclination to favor the principal, or is only the result of passiveness. The neglect of the creditor to sue the principal at the time the debt falls due does not discharge the surety, even if such delay continues until the principal becomes insolvent. 43 And, in the absence of proof of resultant injury, a surety is not discharged by the creditor's mere statement that the creditor will not look to the surety, 44 or that he need not trouble himself. 45 The consequences of the delay, such as the subsequent insolvency of the principal, 46 or the fact that the remedies against the principal may be lost by lapse of time, are immaterial. 47 The raison d'tre for the rule is that there is nothing to prevent the creditor from proceeding against the principal at any time. 48 At any rate, if the surety is dissatisfied with the degree of activity displayed by the creditor in the pursuit of his principal, he may pay the debt himself and become subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the creditor. 49 It may not be amiss to add that leniency shown to a debtor in default, by delay permitted by the creditor without change in the time when the debt might be demanded, does not constitute an extension of the time of payment, which would release the surety. 50 In order to constitute an extension discharging the surety, it should appear that the extension was for a definite period, pursuant to an enforceable agreement between the principal and the creditor, and that it was made without the consent of the surety or with a reservation of rights with respect to him. The contract must be one which precludes the creditor from, or at least hinders him in, enforcing the principal contract within the period during which he could otherwise have enforced it, and which precludes the surety from paying the debt. 51

None of these elements are present in the instant case. Verily, the mere fact that respondent corporation gave the principal debtors an extended period of time within which to comply with their obligation did not effectively absolve here in petitioner from the consequences of her undertaking. Besides, the burden is on the surety, herein petitioner, to show that she has been discharged by some act of the creditor, 52 herein respondent corporation, failing in which we cannot grant the relief prayed for. As a final issue, petitioner claims that assuming that her liability is solidary, the interests and penalty charges on the outstanding balance of the loan cannot be imposed for being illegal and unconscionable. Petitioner additionally theorizes that respondent corporation intentionally delayed the collection of the loan in order that the interests and penalty charges would accumulate. The statement, likewise traversed by said respondent, is misleading. In an affidavit 53 executed by petitioner, which was attached to her petition, she stated, among others, that: 8. During the latter part of 1990, I was surprised to learn that Merlyn Azarraga's loan has been released and that she has not paid the same upon its maturity. I received a telephone call from Mr. Augusto Banusing of MB Lending informing me of this fact and of my liability arising from the promissory note which I signed. 9. I requested Mr. Banusing to try to collect first from Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga. At the same time, I offered to pay MB Lending the outstanding balance of the principal obligation should he fail to collect from Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga. Mr. Banusing advised me not to worry because he will try to collect first from Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga. 10. A year thereafter, I received a telephone call from the secretary of Mr. Banusing who reminded that the loan of Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga, together with interest and penalties thereon, has not been paid. Since I had no available funds at that time, I offered to pay MB Lending by delivering to them a parcel of land which I own. Mr. Banusing's secretary, however, refused my offer for the reason that they are not interested in real estate. 11. In March 1992, I received a copy of the summons and of the complaint filed against me by MB Lending before the RTC-Iloilo. After learning that a complaint was filed against me, I instructed Sheila Gatia to go to MB Lending and reiterate my first offer to pay the outstanding balance of the principal obligation of Merlyn Azarraga in the amount of P30,000.00. 12. Ms. Gatia talked to the secretary of Mr. Banusing who referred her to Atty. Venus, counsel of MB Lending. 13. Atty. Venus informed Ms. Gatia that he will consult Mr. Banusing if my offer to pay the outstanding balance of the principal obligation loan ( sic) of Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga is acceptable. Later, Atty. Venus informed Ms. Gatia that my offer is not acceptable to Mr. Banusing. The purported offer to pay made by petitioner can not be deemed sufficient and substantial in order to effectively discharge her from liability. There are a number of circumstances which conjointly inveigh against her aforesaid theory. 1. Respondent corporation cannot be faulted for not immediately demanding payment from petitioner. It was petitioner who initially requested that the creditor try to collect from her principal first, and she offered to pay only in case the creditor fails to collect. The delay, if any, was occasioned by the fact that respondent corporation merely acquiesced to the request of petitioner. At any rate, there was here no actual offer of payment to speak of but only a commitment to pay if the principal does not pay.

2. Petitioner made a second attempt to settle the obligation by offering a parcel of land which she owned. Respondent corporation was acting well within its rights when it refused to accept the offer. The debtor of a thing cannot compel the creditor to receive a different one, although the latter may be of the same value, or more valuable than that which is due. 54 The obligee is entitled to demand fulfillment of the obligation or performance as stipulated. A change of the object of the obligation would constitute novation requiring the express consent of the parties. 55 3. After the complaint was filed against her, petitioner reiterated her offer to pay the outstanding balance of the obligation in the amount of P30,000.00 but the same was likewise rejected. Again, respondent corporation cannot be blamed for refusing the amount being offered because it fell way below the amount it had computed, based on the stipulated interests and penalty charges, as owing and due from herein petitioner. A debt shall not be understood to have been paid unless the thing or service in which the obligation consists has been completely delivered or rendered, as the case may be. 56 In other words, the prestation must be fulfilled completely. A person entering into a contract has a right to insist on its performance in all particulars. 57 Petitioner cannot compel respondent corporation to accept the amount she is willing to pay because the moment the latter accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness or irregularity, and without expressing any protest or objection, then the obligation shall be deemed fully complied with. 58 Precisely, this is what respondent corporation wanted to avoid when it continually refused to settle with petitioner at less than what was actually due under their contract. This notwithstanding, however, we find and so hold that the penalty charge of 3% per month and attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the total amount due are highly inequitable and unreasonable. It must be remembered that from the principal loan of P30,000.00, the amount of P16,300.00 had already been paid even before the filing of the present case. Article 1229 of the Civil Code provides that the court shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. And, even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced if it is iniquitous or leonine. In a case previously decided by this Court which likewise involved private respondent M.B. Lending Corporation, and which is substantially on all fours with the one at bar, we decided to eliminate altogether the penalty interest for being excessive and unwarranted under the following rationalization: Upon the matter of penalty interest, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the economic impact of the penalty interest of three percent (3 %) per month on total amount due but unpaid should be equitably reduced. The purpose for which the penalty interest is intended that is, to punish the obligor will have been sufficiently served by the effects of compounded interest. Under the exceptional circumstances in the case at bar, e.g., the original amount loaned was only P15,000.00; partial payment of P8,600.00 was made on due date; and the heavy (albeit still lawful) regular compensatory interest, the penalty interest stipulated in the parties' promissory note is iniquitous and unconscionable and may be equitably reduced further by eliminating such penalty interest altogether. 59 Accordingly, the penalty interest of 3% per month being imposed on petitioner should similarly be eliminated. Finally, with respect to the award of attorney's fees, this Court has previously ruled that even with an agreement thereon between the parties, the court may nevertheless reduce such attorney's fees fixed in the contract when the amount thereof appears to be

unconscionable or unreasonable. 60 To that end, it is not even necessary to show, as in other contracts, that it is contrary to morals or public policy. 61 The grant of attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the total amount due is, in our opinion, unreasonable and immoderate, considering the minimal unpaid amount involved and the extent of the work involved in this simple action for collection of a sum of money. We, therefore, hold that the amount of P10,000.00 as and for attorney's fee would be sufficient in this case. 62 WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the penalty interest of 3% per month is hereby deleted and the award of attorney's fees is reduced to P10,000.00. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 109941 August 17, 1999

respondent has not exhausted the property of the principal debtor nor has she resorted to all the legal remedies against the principal debtor as required by law. Finally, petitioner claims that there was an extension of the maturity date of the loan 8 without her consent, thus releasing from her obligation. After trial on the merits, the lower court ruled in favor of private respondent. In its Decision dated June 14, 1990, it stated that The evidence and the testimonies on record clearly established a ( sic) fact that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants was a loan with five percent (5%) monthly interest and not an investment. In fact they all admitted in their testimonies that they are not given any stock certificate but only promissory notes similar to Exhibit "B" wherein it was clearly stated that defendant Luanzon would pay the amount of indebtedness on the date due. Postdated checks were issued simultaneously with the promissory notes to enable the plaintiff and others to withdraw their money on a certain fixed time. This shows that they were never participants in the business transaction of defendant Luanzon but were creditors. The evidences presented likewise show that plaintiff and others loan their money to defendant Luanzon because of the assurance of the monthly income of five percent (5%) of their money and that they could withdraw it anytime after the due date add to it the fact that their friend, Pacionaria Baylon, expresses her unequivocal gurarantee to the payment of the amount loaned. xxx xxx xxx

PACIONARIA C. BAYLON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Former Ninth Division) and LEONILA TOMACRUZ, respondents. GONZAGA-REYES, J.: This is a petition for review by way of certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of 1 Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1991 in CA-G.R. 2 CV No. 27779 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 88, dated June 14, 1990 in Civil Case No. Q-89-2483 and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated April 27, 1993 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.1wphi1.nt The pertinent facts, as found by the trial court and affirmed by respondent court, are briefly narrated as follows: Sometime in 1986, petitioner Pacionaria C. Baylon introduced private respondent 3 Leonila Tomacruz, the co-manager of her husband at PLDT, to Rosita B. Luanzon. Petitioner told private respondent that Luanzon has been engaged in business as a contractor for twenty years and she invited private respondent to lend Luanzon money at a monthly interest rate of five percent (5%), to be used as capital for the latter's business. Private respondent, persuaded by the assurances of petitioner that Luanzon's business was stable and by the high interest rate, agreed to lend Luanzon money in the amount of P150,000. On June 22, 1987, Luanzon issued and signed a promissory note acknowledging receipt of the P150,000 from private respondent and 4 obliging herself to pay the former the said amount on or before August 22, 1987. Petitioner signed the promissory note, affixing her signature under the word "guarantor." Luanzon also issued a postdated Solidbank check no. CA418437 dated 5 August 22, 1987 payable to Leonila Tomacruz in the amount of P150,000.00. Subsequently, Luanzon replaced this check with another postdated Solidbank check no. 432945 dated December 22, 1987, in favor of the same payee and covering the 6 same amount. Several check in the amount of P7,500 each were also issued by 7 Luanzon and made payable to private respondent. Private respondent made a written demand upon petitioner for payment, which petitioner did not heed. Thus, on May 8, 1989, private respondent filed a case for the collection of a sum of money with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 88, against Luanzon and petitioner herein, impleading Mariano Baylon, husband of petitioner, as an additional defendant. However, summons was never served upon Luanzon. In her answer, petitioner denied having guaranteed the payment of the promissory note issued by Luanzon. She claimed that private respondent gave Luanzon the money, not as loan, but rather as an investment in Art Enterprises and Construction, Inc. the construction business of Luanzon. Furthermore, petitioner avers that, granting arguendo that there was a loan and petitioner guaranteed the same, private

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered against the defendants Pacionaria C. Baylon and Mariano Baylon, to pay the plaintiff the sum of P150,000.00, with interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until full payment thereof, to pay the total sum of P21,000.00 as 9 attorney's fees and costs of suit. On appeal, the trial court's decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this present case wherein petitioner makes the following assignment of errors I. RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT TOMACRUZ WAS A CREDITOR OF DEFENDANT LUANZON AND NOT AN INVESTOR IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS OF ART ENTERPRISES & CONSTRUCTION, INC. II. GRANTING, WITHOUT ADMITTING, THAT PETITIONER-APPELLANT BAYLON WAS A "GUARANTOR" AS APPEARING IN THE NOTE (EXH. "A") THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONERAPPELLANT BAYLON IS LIABLE TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT BECAUSE THE LATTER HAS NOT TAKEN STEPS TO EXHAUST THE PROPERTY OF THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR AND HAS NOT RESORTED TO ALL THE LEGAL REMEDIES PROVIDED BY LAW AGAINST THE DEBTOR, DEFENDANT LUANZON. III. GRANTING, WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT PETITIONER-APPELLANT BAYLON WAS A GUARANTOR UNDER THAT NOTE (EXHIBIT "A") DATED JUNE 22, 1987, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RESOLVING THAT SHE WAS NOT RELEASED FROM HER GUARANTY BY THE

SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN APPELLANT AND DEFENDANT LUANZON.

THE

RESPONDENT-

At the outset, we note that petitioner's claim that the factual findings of the lower court, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were based on a 10 misapprehension of facts and contradicted by the evidence on records is a bare allegation and devoid of merit. As a rule, the conclusions of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and cannot 11 be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court. Although this rule admits of several 12 exceptions, none of the exceptions are in point in the present case. The factual findings of the respondent court are borne out by the record and are based on substantial evidence. Petitioner claims that there is no loan to begin with; that private respondent gave Luanzon the amount of P150,000, not as a loan, but rather as an investment in the 13 construction project of the latter. In support of her claim, petitioner cites the use by private respondent of the words "investment," "dividends," and "commission" in her testimony before the lower court; the fact that private respondent received monthly checks from Luanzon in the amount of P7,500 from July to December, 1987, representing dividends on her investment; and the fact that other employees of the Development Bank of the Philippines made similar investments in Luanzon's 14 construction business. However, all the circumstances mentioned by petitioner cannot override the clear and unequivocal terms of the June 22, 1987 promissory note whereby Luanzon promised to pay private respondent the amount of P150,000 on or before August 22, 1987. The promissory note states as follows: June 22, 1987 To Whom It May Concern: For value received, I hereby promise to pay Mrs. LEONILA TOMACRUZ the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P150,000.00) on or before August 22, 1987. The above amount is covered by __________ Check No. _______ dated August 22, 1987. (signed) ROSITA B. LUANZON GURARANTOR: (signed) PACIONARIA O. BAYLON Tel. No. 801-28-00 18 P. Mapa St., DBP Village 15 Almanza, Las Pinas, M.M. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the 16 contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control. Resort to extrinsic aids and other extraneous sources are not necessary in order to ascertain 17 the parties' intent when there is no ambiguity in the terms of the agreement. Both petitioner and private respondent do not deny the due execution and authenticity of the June 22, 1987 promissory note. All of petitioner's arguments are directed at uncovering the real intention of the parties in executing the promissory note, but no

amount of argumentation will change the plain import of the terms thereof, and accordingly, no attempt to read into it any alleged intention of the parties thereto may 18 be justified. The clear terms of the promissory note establish a creditor-debtor relationship between Luanzon and private respondent. The transaction at bench is therefore a loan, not an investment. It is petitioner's contention that, even though she is held to be a guarantor under the terms of the promissory note, she is not liable because private respondent did not exhaust the property of the principal debtor and has not resorted to all the legal 19 remedies provided by the law against the debtor. Petitioner is invoking the benefit of excussion pursuant to article 2058 of the Civil Code, which provides that The guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor, and has resorted to all the legal remedies against the debtor. It is axiomatic that the liability of the guarantor is only subsidiary. All the properties of the principal debtor must first be exhausted before his own is levied upon. Thus, the creditor may hold the guarantor liable only after judgment has been obtained against the principal debtor and the latter is unable to pay, "for obviously the 'exhaustion of the principal's property' the benefit of which the guarantor claims 21 cannot even begin to take place before judgment has been obtained." This rule is embodied in article 2062 of the Civil Code which provides that the action brought by the creditor must be filed against the principal debtor alone, except in some instances 22 when the action may be brought against both the debtor and the principal debtor. Under the circumstances availing in the present case, we hold that it is premature for this Court to even determine whether or not petitioner is liable as a guarantor and whether she is entitled to the concomitant rights as such, like the benefit of excussion, since the most basic prerequisite is wanting that is, no judgment was first obtained against the principal debtor Rosita B. Luanzon. It is useless to speak of a guarantor when no debtor has been held liable for the obligation which is allegedly secured by such guarantee. Although the principal debtor Luanzon was impleaded as defendant, there is nothing in the records to show that summons was served upon her. Thus, the trial court never even acquired jurisdiction over the principal debtor. We hold that private respondent must first obtain a judgment against the principal debtor before assuming to run after the alleged guarantor. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is granted and the questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1991 and Resolution dated April 27, 1993 are SET ASIDE. No pronouncement as to costs.1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED.
20

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION [G.R. NO. 117913. February 1, 2002] CHARLES LEE, CHUA SIOK SUY, MARIANO SIO, ALFONSO YAP, RICHARD VELASCO and ALFONSO CO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, respondents. [G.R. NO. 117914. February 1, 2002] MICO METALS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, respondents. DECISION DE LEON, JR., J: Before us is the joint and consolidated petition for review of the Decision[1] dated June 15, 1994 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 27480 entitled, Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Mico Metals Corporation, Charles Lee, Chua Siok Suy, Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap, Richard Velasco and Alfonso Co, which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 55 dismissing the complaint for a sum of money filed by private respondent Philippine Bank of Communications against herein petitioners, Mico Metals Corporation (MICO, for brevity), Charles Lee, Chua Siok Suy,[2] Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap, Richard Velasco and Alfonso Co.[3] The dispositive portion of the said Decision of the Court of Appeals, reads: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby reversed and in lieu thereof, a new one is entered: a) Ordering the defendants-appellees jointly and severally to pay plaintiff PBCom the sum of Five million four hundred fifty-one thousand six hundred sixty-three pesos and ninety centavos (P5,451,663.90) representing defendants-appellees unpaid obligations arising from ordinary loans granted by the plaintiff plus legal interest until fully paid. b) Ordering defendants-appellees jointly and severally to pay PBCom the sum of Four hundred sixty-one thousand six hundred pesos and sixty-six centavos (P46 1,600.66) representing defendants-appellees unpaid obligations arising from their letters of credit and trust receipt transactions with plaintiff PBCom plus legal interest until fully paid. c) Ordering defendants-appellees jointly and severally to pay PBCom the sum of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees. No pronouncement as to costs. The facts of the case are as follows: On March 2, 1979, Charles Lee, as President of MICO wrote private respondent Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) requesting for a grant of a discounting loan/credit line in the sum of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) for the purpose of carrying out MICOs line of business as well as to maintain its volume of business. On the same day, Charles Lee requested for another discounting loan/credit line of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) from PBCom for the purpose of opening letters of credit and trust receipts. In connection with the requests for discounting loan/credit lines, PBCom was furnished by MICO the following resolution which was adopted unanimously by MICOs Board of Directors: RESOLVED, that the President, Mr. Charles Lee, and the Vice-President and General Manager, Mr. Mariano A. Sio, singly or jointly, be and they are duly authorized and empowered for and in

behalf of this Corporation to apply for, negotiate and secure the approval of commercial loans and other banking facilities and accommodations, such as, but not limited to discount loans, letters of credit, trust receipts, lines for marginal deposits on foreign and domestic letters of credit, negotiate out-of-town checks, etc. from the Philippine Bank of Communications, 216 Juan Luna, Manila in such sums as they shall deem advantageous, the principal of all of which shall not exceed the total amount of TEN MILLION PESOS (P10,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, plus any interests that may be agreed upon with said Bank in such loans and other credit lines of the same kind and such further terms and conditions as may, upon granting of said loans and other banking facilities, be imposed by the Bank; and to make, execute, sign and deliver any contracts of mortgage, pledge or sale of one, some or all of the properties of the Company, or any other agreements or documents of whatever nature or kind, including the signing, indorsing, cashing, negotiation and execution of promissory notes, checks, money orders or other negotiable instruments, which may be necessary and proper in connection with said loans and other banking facilities, or with their amendments, renewals and extensions of payment of the whole or any part thereof.[4] On March 26, 1979, MICO availed of the first loan of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) from PBCom. Upon maturity of the loan, MICO caused the same to be renewed, the last renewal of which was made on May 21, 1982 under Promissory Note BNA No. 26218.[5] Another loan of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was availed of by MICO from PBCom which was likewise later on renewed, the last renewal of which was made on May 21, 1982 under Promissory Note BNA No. 26219.[6] To complete MICOs availment of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) discounting loan/credit line with PBCom, MICO availed of another loan from PBCom in the sum of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) on May 24, 1979. As in previous loans, this was rolled over or renewed, the last renewal of which was made on May 25, 1982 under Promissory Note BNA No. 26253.[7] As security for the loans, MICO through its Vice-President and General Manager, Mariano Sio, executed on May 16, 1979 a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over its properties situated in Pasig, Metro Manila covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 11248 and 11250. On March 26, 1979 Charles Lee, Chua Siok Suy, Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap and Richard Velasco, in their personal capacities executed a Surety Agreement[8] in favor of PBCom whereby the petitioners jointly and severally, guaranteed the prompt payment on due dates or at maturity of overdrafts, promissory notes, discounts, drafts, letters of credit, bills of exchange, trust receipts, and other obligations of every kind and nature, for which MICO may be held accountable by PBCom. It was provided, however, that the liability of the sureties shall not at any one time exceed the principal amount of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) plus interest, costs, losses, charges and expenses including attorneys fees incurred by PBCom in connection therewith. On July 14, 1980, petitioner Charles Lee, in his capacity as president of MICO, wrote PBCom and applied for an additional loan in the sum of Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00). The loan was intended for the expansion and modernization of the companys machineries. Upon approval of the said application for loan, MICO availed of the additional loan of Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) as evidenced by Promissory Note TA No. 094.[9] As per agreement, the proceeds of all the loan availments were credited to MICOs current checking account with PBCom. To induce the PBCom to increase the credit line of MICO, Charles Lee, Chua Siok Suy, Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap, Richard Velasco and Alfonso Co (hereinafter referred to as petitioners-sureties), executed another surety agreement[10] in favor of PBCom on July 28, 1980, whereby they jointly and severally guaranteed the prompt payment on due dates or at maturity of overdrafts, promissory notes, discounts, drafts, letters of credit, bills of exchange, trust receipts and all other obligations of any kind and nature for which MICO may be held accountable by PBCom. It was provided, however, that their liability shall not at any one time exceed the sum of Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P7,500,000.00) including interest, costs, charges, expenses and attorneys fees incurred by MICO in connectio n therewith.

On July 29, 1980, MICO furnished PBCom with a notarized certification issued by its corporate secretary, Atty. P.B. Barrera, that Chua Siok Suy was duly authorized by the Board of Directors to negotiate on behalf of MICO for loans and other credit availments from PBCom. Indicated in the certification was the following resolution unanimously approved by the Board of Directors: RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, That Mr. Chua Siok Suy be, as he is hereby authorized and empowered, on behalf of MICO METALS CORPORATION from time to time, to borrow money and obtain other credit facilities, with or without security, from the PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS in such amount(s) and under such terms and conditions as he may determine, with full power and authority to execute, sign and deliver such contracts, instruments and papers in connection therewith, including real estate and chattel mortgages, pledges and assignments over the properties of the Corporation; and to renew and/or extend and/or roll-over and/or reavail of the credit facilities granted thereunder, either for lesser or for greater amount(s), the intention being that such credit facilities and all securities of whatever kind given as collaterals therefor shall be a continuing security. RESOLVED FURTHER, That said bank is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to rely on the authority given hereunder, the same to continue in full force and effect until written notice of its revocation shall be received by said Bank.[11] On July 2, 1981, MICO filed with PBCom an application for a domestic letter of credit in the sum of Three Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand Pesos (P348,000.00).[12] The corresponding irrevocable letter of credit was approved and opened under LC No. L-16060.[13] Thereafter, the domestic letter of credit was negotiated and accepted by MICO as evidenced by the corresponding bank draft issued for the purpose.[14] After the supplier of the merchandise was paid, a trust receipt upon MICOs own initiative, was executed in favor of PBCom.[ 15] On September 14, 1981, MICO applied for another domestic letter of credit with PBCom in the sum of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Pesos (P290,000.00).[16] The corresponding irrevocable letter of credit was issued on September 22, 1981 under LC No. L-16334.[17] After the beneficiary of the said letter of credit was paid by PBCom for the price of the merchandise, the goods were delivered to MICO which executed a corresponding trust receipt[18] in favor of PBCom. On November 10, 1981, MICO applied for authority to open a foreign letter of credit in favor of Ta Jih Enterprises Co., Ltd.,[19] and thus, the corresponding letter of credit[20] was then issued by PBCom with a cable sent to the beneficiary, Ta Jih Enterprises Co., Ltd. advising that said beneficiary may draw funds from the account of PBCom in its correspondent banks New York Office.[21] PBCom also informed its corresponding bank in Taiwan, the Irving Trust Company, of the approved letter of credit. The correspondent bank acknowledged PBComs advice t hrough a confirmation letter[22] and by debiting from PBComs account with the said correspondent bank the sum of Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty US Dollars ($11 ,960.00).[23] As in past transactions, MICO executed in favor of PBCom a corresponding trust receipt.[24] On January 4, 1982, MICO applied, for authority to open a foreign letter of credit in the sum of One Thousand Nine Hundred US Dollars ($1,900.00), with PBCom.[25] Upon approval, the corresponding letter of credit denominated as LC No. 62293[26] was issued whereupon PBCom advised its correspondent bank and MICO[27] of the same. Negotiation and proper acceptance of the letter of credit were then made by MICO. Again, a corresponding trust receipt[28] was executed by MICO in favor of PBCom. In all the transactions involving foreign letters of credit, PBCom turned over to MICO the necessary documents such as the bills of lading and commercial invoices to enable the latter to withdraw the goods from the port of Manila. On May 21, 1982 MICO obtained from PBCom another loan in the sum of Three Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand Pesos (P377,000.00) covered by Promissory Note BA No. 7458.[29] Upon maturity of all credit availments obtained by MICO from PBCom, the latter made a demand for payment.[30] For failure of petitioner MICO to pay the obligations incurred despite repeated demands, private respondent PBCom extrajudicially foreclosed MICOs real estate mortgage

and sold the said mortgaged properties in a public auction sale held on November 23, 1982. Private respondent PBCom which emerged as the highest bidder in the auction sale, applied the proceeds of the purchase price at public auction of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) to the expenses of the foreclosure, interest and charges and part of the principal of the loans, leaving an unpaid balance of Five Million Four Hundred Forty-One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Three Pesos and Ninety Centavos (P5,441,663.90) exclusive of penalty and interest charges. Aside from the unpaid balance of Five Million Four Hundred Forty-One Thousand Six Hundred SixtyThree Pesos and Ninety Centavos (P5,441,663.90), MICO likewise had another standing obligation in the sum of Four Hundred Sixty-One Thousand Six Hundred Pesos and Six Centavos (P461,600.06) representing its trust receipts liabilities to private respondent. PBCom then demanded the settlement of the aforesaid obligations from herein petitioners-sureties who, however, refused to acknowledge their obligations to PBCom under the surety agreements. Hence, PBCom filed a complaint with prayer for writ of preliminary attachment before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which was raffled to Branch 55, alleging that MICO was no longer in operation and had no properties to answer for its obligations. PBCom further alleged that petitioner Charles Lee has disposed or concealed his properties with intent to defraud his creditors. Except for MICO and Charles Lee, the sheriff of the RTC failed to serve the summons on herein petitioners-sureties since they were all reportedly abroad at the time. An alias summons was later issued but the sheriff was not able to serve the same to petitioners Alfonso Co and Chua Siok Suy who was already sickly at the time and reportedly in Taiwan where he later died. Petitioners (MICO and herein petitioners-sureties) denied all the allegations of the complaint filed by respondent PBCom, and alleged that: a) MICO was not granted the alleged loans and neither did it receive the proceeds of the aforesaid loans; b) Chua Siok Suy was never granted any valid Board Resolution to sign for and in behalf of MICO; c) PBCom acted in bad faith in granting the alleged loans and in releasing the proceeds thereof; d) petitioners were never advised of the alleged grant of loans and the subsequent releases therefor, if any; e) since no loan was ever released to or received by MICO, the corresponding real estate mortgage and the surety agreements signed concededly by the petitioners-sureties are null and void. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of herein petitioners and dismissed the complaint filed by PBCom. The trial court likewise declared the real estate mortgage and its foreclosure null and void. In ruling for herein petitioners, the trial court said that PBCom failed to adequately prove that the proceeds of the loans were ever delivered to MICO. The trial court pointed out, among others, that while PBCom claimed that the proceeds of the Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) loan covered by promissory note TA 094 were deposited to the current account of petitioner MICO, PBCom failed to produce the ledger account showing such deposit. The trial court added that while PBCom may have loaned to MICO the other sums of Three Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand Pesos (P348,000.00) and Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Pesos (P290,000.00), no proof has been adduced as to the existence of the goods covered and paid by the said amounts. Hence, inasmuch as no consideration ever passed from PBCom to MICO, all the documents involved therein, such as the promissory notes, real estate mortgage including the surety agreements were all void or nonexistent for lack of cause or consideration. The trial court said that the lack of proof as regards the existence of the merchandise covered by the letters of credit bolstered the claim of herein petitioners that no purchases of the goods were really made and that the letters of credit transactions were simply resorted to by the PBCom and Chua Siok Suy to accommodate the latter in his financial requirements.

The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court, saying that the latter committed an erroneous application and appreciation of the rules governing the burden of proof. Citing Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides that Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for valuable consideration and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party thereto for value, the Court of Appeals said that while the subject promissory notes and letters of credit issued by the PBCom made no mention of delivery of cash, it is presumed that said negotiable instruments were issued for valuable consideration. The Court of Appeals also cited the case of Gatmaitan vs. Court of Appeals[31] which holds that "there is a presumption that an instrument sets out

the true agreement of the parties thereto and that it was executed for valuable consideration. The appellate court noted and found that a notarized Certification was issued by MICOs corporate secretary, P.B. Barrera, that Chua Siok Suy, was d uly authorized by the Board of Directors of MICO to borrow money and obtain credit facilities from PBCom. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals but this was denied in a Resolution dated November 7, 1994 issued by its Former Second Division. Petitioners-sureties then filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 117913, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. MICO likewise filed a separate petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 117914, with this Court assailing the same decision rendered by the Court of Appeals. Upon motion filed by petitioners, the two (2) petitions were consolidated on January 11, 1995.[32] Petitioners contend that there was no proof that the proceeds of the loans or the goods under the trust receipts were ever delivered to and received by MICO. But the record shows otherwise. Petitioners-sureties further contend that assuming that there was delivery by PBCom of the proceeds of the loans and the goods, the contracts were executed by an unauthorized person, more specifically Chua Siok Suy who acted fraudulently and in collusion with PBCom to defraud MICO. The pertinent issues raised in the consolidated cases at bar are: a) whether or not the proceeds of the loans and letters of credit transactions were ever delivered to MICO, and b) whether or not the individual petitioners, as sureties, may be held liable under the two (2) Surety Agreements executed on March 26, 1979 and July 28, 1980. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence.[33] Preponderance of evidence means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Petitioners contend that the alleged promissory notes, trust receipts and surety agreements attached to the complaint filed by PBCom did not ripen into valid and binding contracts inasmuch as there is no evidence of the delivery of money or loan proceeds to MICO or to any of the petitioners-sureties. Petitioners claim that under normal banking practice, borrowers are required to accomplish promissory notes in blank even before the grant of the loans applied for and such documents become valid written contracts only when the loans are actually released to the borrower. We are not convinced. During the trial of an action, the party who has the burden of proof upon an issue may be aided in establishing his claim or defense by the operation of a presumption, or, expressed differently, by the probative value which the law attaches to a specific state of facts. A presumption may operate against his adversary who has not introduced proof to rebut the presumption. The effect of a legal presumption upon a burden of proof is to create the necessity of presenting evidence to meet the legal presumption or the prima facie case created thereby, and which if no proof to the contrary is presented and offered, will prevail. The burden of proof remains where it is, but by the presumption the one who has that burden is relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in support of his averment, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted. Under Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court the following presumptions, among others, are satisfactory if uncontradicted: a) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract and b) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for sufficient consideration. As observed by the Court of Appeals, a similar presumption is found in Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides that every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for valuable consideration and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party for value. Negotiable instruments which are meant to be substitutes for money, must conform to the following requisites to be considered as such a) it must be in writing; b) it must be signed by the maker or drawer; c) it must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; d) it must be payable on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time; e) it must be payable to order or bearer; and f) where it is a bill of exchange, the drawee must be named or otherwise indicated with reasonable certainty. Negotiable instruments include promissory notes, bills of exchange and checks. Letters of credit and trust receipts are, however,

not negotiable instruments. But drafts issued in connection with letters of credit are negotiable instruments. Private respondent PBCom presented the following documentary evidence to prove petitioners credit availments and liabilities: 1) Promissory Note No. BNA 26218 dated May 21, 1982 in the sum of P1,000,000.00 executed by MICO in favor of PBCom. 2) Promissory Note No. BNA 26219 dated May 21, 1982 in the sum of P1,000,000.00 executed by MICO in favor of PBCom. 3) Promissory Note No. BNA 26253 dated May 25, 1982 in the sum of P1,000,000.00 executed by MICO in favor of PBCom. 4) Promissory Note No. BNA 7458 dated May 21, 1982 in the sum of P377,000.00 executed by MICO in favor of PBCom. 5) Promissory Note No. TA 094 dated July 29, 1980 in the sum of P4,000.000.00 executed by MICO in favor of PBCom. 6) Irrevocable letter of credit No. L-16060 dated July 2,1981 issued in favor of Perez Battery Center for account of Mico Metals Corp. 7) Draft dated July 2, 1981 in the sum of P348,000.00 issued by Perez Battery Center, beneficiary of irrevocable Letter of Credit No. No. L-16060 and accepted by MICO Metals corporation. 8) Letter dated July 2, 1981 from Perez Battery Center addressed to private respondent PBCom showing that proceeds of the irrevocable letter of credit No. L- 16060 was received by Mr. Moises Rosete, representative of Perez Battery Center. 9) Trust receipt dated July 2, 1981 executed by MICO in favor of PBCom covering the merchandise purchased under Letter of Credit No. 16060. 10) Irrevocable letter of credit No. L-16334 dated September 22, 1981 issued in favor of Perez Battery Center for account of MICO Metals Corp. 11) Draft dated September 22, 1981 in the sum of P290,000.00 issued by Perez Battery Center and accepted by MICO. 12) Letter dated September 17, 1981 from Perez Battery addressed to PBCom showing that the proceeds of credit no. L-16344 was received by Mr. Moises Rosete, a representative of Perez Battery Center. 13) Trust Receipt dated September 22, 1981 executed by MICO in favor of PBCom covering the merchandise under Letter of Credit No. L-16334. 14) Irrevocable Letter of Credit no. 61873 dated November 10, 1981 for US$11,960.00 issued by PBCom in favor of TA JIH Enterprises Co. Ltd., through its correspondent bank, Irving Trust Company of Taipei, Taiwan. 15) Trust Receipt dated December 15, 9181 executed by MICO in favor of PBCom showing that possession of the merchandise covered by Irrevocable Letter of Credit no. 61873 was released by PBCom to MICO. 16) Letters dated March 2, 1979 from MICO signed by its president, Charles Lee, showing that MICO sought credit line from PBCom in the form of loans, letters of credit and trust receipt in the sum of P7,500,000.00. 17) Letter dated July 14, 1980 from MICO signed by its president, Charles Lee, showing that MICO requested for additional financial assistance in the sum of P4,000,000.00.

18) Board resolution dated March 6, 1979 of MICO authorizing Charles Lee and Mariano Sio singly or jointly to act and sign for and in behalf of MICO relative to the obtention of credit facilities from PBCom. 19) Duly notarized Deed of Mortgage dated May 16, 1979 executed by MICO in favor of PBCom over MICO s real properties covered by TCT Nos. 11248 and 11250 located in Pasig. 20) Duly notarized Surety Agreement dated March 26, 1979 executed by herein petitioners Charles Lee, Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap, Richard Velasco and Chua Siok Suy in favor of PBCom. 21) Duly notarized Surety Agreement dated July 28, 1980 executed by herein petitioners Charles Lee, Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap, Richard Velasco and Chua Siok Suy in favor of PBCom. 22) Duly notarized certification dated July 28, 1980 issued by MICO s corporate secretary, Mr. P.B. Barrera, attesting to the adoption of a board resolution authorizing Chua Siok Suy to sign, for and in behalf of MICO, all the necessary documents including contracts, loan instruments and mortgages relative to the obtention of various credit facilities from PBCom. The above-cited documents presented have not merely created a prima facie case but have actually proved the solidary obligation of MICO and the petitioners, as sureties of MICO, in favor of respondent PBCom. While the presumption found under the Negotiable Instruments Law may not necessarily be applicable to trust receipts and letters of credit, the presumption that the drafts drawn in connection with the letters of credit have sufficient consideration. Under Section 3(r), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court there is also a presumption that sufficient consideration was given in a contract. Hence, petitioners should have presented credible evidence to rebut that presumption as well as the evidence presented by private respondent PBCom. The letters of credit show that the pertinent materials/merchandise have been received by MICO. The drafts signed by the beneficiary/suppliers in connection with the corresponding letters of credit proved that said suppliers were paid by PBCom for the account of MICO. On the other hand, aside from their bare denials petitioners did not present sufficient and competent evidence to rebut the evidence of private respondent PBCom. Petitioner MICO did not proffer a single piece of evidence, apart from its bare denials, to support its allegation that the loan transactions, real estate mortgage, letters of credit and trust receipts were issued allegedly without any consideration. Petitioners-sureties, for their part, presented the By-Laws[34] of Mico Metals Corporation (MICO) to prove that only the president of MICO is authorized to borrow money, arrange letters of credit, execute trust receipts, and promissory notes and consequently, that the loan transactions, letters of credit, promissory notes and trust receipts, most of which were executed by Chua Siok Suy in representation of MICO were not allegedly authorized and hence, are not binding upon MICO. A perusal of the By-Laws of MICO, however, shows that the power to borrow money for the company and issue mortgages, bonds, deeds of trust and negotiable instruments or securities, secured by mortgages or pledges of property belonging to the company is not confined solely to the president of the corporation. The Board of Directors of MICO can also borrow money, arrange letters of credit, execute trust receipts and promissory notes on behalf of the corporation.[35] Significantly, this power of the Board of Directors according to the by-laws of MICO, may be delegated to any of its standing committee, officer or agent.[36] Hence, PBCom had every right to rely on the Certification issued by MICO's corporate secretary, P.B. Barrera, that Chua Siok Suy was duly authorized by its Board of Directors to borrow money and obtain credit facilities in behalf of MICO from PBCom. Petitioners-sureties also presented a letter of their counsel dated October 9, 1982, addressed to private respondent PBCom purportedly to show that PBCom knew that Chua Siok Suy allegedly used the credit and good names of the petitioner-sureties for his benefit, and that petitionersureties were made to sign blank documents and were furnished copies of the same. The letter, however, is in fact merely a reply of petitioners-sureties counsel to PBComs demand for payment of MICOs obligations, and appears to be an inconsequential piece of self -serving evidence.

In addition to the foregoing, MICO and petitioners-sureties cited the decision of the trial court which stated that there was no proof that the proceeds of the loans were ever delivered to MICO. Although the private respondents witness, Mr. Gardiola, testified that the proceeds of the loans were deposited in MICOs current account with PBCom, his testimony was allegedly not supported by any bank record, note or memorandum. A careful scrutiny of the record including the transcript of stenographic notes reveals, however, that although private respondent PBCom was willing to produce the corresponding account ledger showing that the proceeds of the loans were credited to MICOs current account with PBCom, MICO in fact vigorously objected to the presentation of said document. That point is shown in the testimony of PBComs witness, Gardiola, thus: Q: Now, all of these promissory note Exhibits I and J which as you have said previously (sic) availed originally by defendant Mico Metals Corp. sometime in 1979, my question now is, do you know what happened to the proceeds of the original availment? A: Well, it was credited to the current account of Mico Metals Corp.

Q: Why did it was credited to the proceeds to the account of Mico Metals Corp? (sic) A: Well, that is our understanding.

ATTY. DURAN: Your honor, may we be given a chance to object, the best evidence is the so-called current account... COURT: Can you produce the ledger account? A: Yes, Your Honor, I will bring.

COURT: The ledger or record of the current account of Mico Metals Corp. A: Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. ACEJAS: Your Honor, these are a confidential record, and they might not be disclosed without the consent of the person concerned. (sic) ATTY. SANTOS: Well, you are the one who is asking that. ATTY. DURAN: Your Honor, Im precisely want to show for the ... (sic) COURT: But the amount covered by the current account of defendant Mico Metals Corp. is the subject matter of this case. xxx Q: Are those availments were release? (sic) A: Yes, Your Honor, to the defendant corporation. xxx xxx

Q: By what means? A: By the credit to their current account.

ATTY. ACEJAS:

We object to that, your Honor, because the disclose is the secrecy of the bank deposit. (sic) xxx xxx xxx

be illegal since PBCom, being a banking institution, is not authorized by law to engage in the business of importing and selling goods. A trust receipt is considered as a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not be able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral of the merchandise imported or purchased.[39] A trust receipt, therefor, is a document of security pursuant to which a bank acquires a security interest in the goods under trust receipt. Under a letter of credit-trust receipt arrangement, a bank extends a loan covered by a letter of credit, with the trust receipt as a security for the loan. The transaction involves a loan feature represented by a letter of credit, and a security feature which is in the covering trust receipt which secures an indebtedness. Petitioners averments with regard to the second issue are no less incredulous. Petitioners contend that the letters of credit, surety agreements and loan transactions did not ripen into valid and binding contracts since no part of the proceeds of the loan transactions were delivered to MICO or to any of the petitioners-sureties. Petitioners-sureties allege that Chua Siok Suy was the beneficiary of the proceeds of the loans and that the latter made them sign the surety agreements in blank. Thus, they maintain that they should not be held accountable for any liability that might arise therefrom. It has not escaped our notice that it was petitioner-surety Charles Lee, as president of MICO Metals Corporation, who first requested for a discounting loan of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) from PBCom as evidenced by his letter dated March 2, 1979.[40] On the same day, Charles Lee, as President of MICO, requested for a Letter of Credit and Trust Receipt line in the sum of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00).[41] Still, on the same day, Charles Lee again as President of MICO, wrote another letter to PBCOM requesting for a financing line in the sum of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) to be used exclusively as marginal deposit for the opening of MICOs foreign and local letters of cr edit with PBCom.[42] More than a year later, it was also Charles Lee, again in his capacity as president of MICO, who asked for an additional loan in the sum of Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00). The claim therefore of petitioners that it was Chua Siok Suy, in connivance with the respondent PBCom, who applied for and obtained the loan transactions and letters of credit strains credulity considering that even the Deed of the Real Estate Mortgage in favor of PBCom was executed by petitioner-surety Mariano Sio in his capacity as general manager of MICO[43] to secure the loan accommodations obtained by MICO from PBCom. Petitioners-sureties allege that they were made to sign the surety agreements in blank by Chua Siok Suy. Petitioner Alfonso Yap, the corporate treasurer, for his part testified that he signed booklets of checks, surety agreements and promissory notes in blank; that he signed the documents in blank despite his misgivings since Chua Siok Suy assured him that the transaction can easily be taken cared of since Chua Siok Suy personally knew the Chairman of the Board of PBCom; that he was not receiving salary as treasurer of Mico Metals and since Chua Siok Suy had a direct hand in the management of Malayan Sales Corporation, of which Yap is an employee, he (Yap) signed the documents in blank as consideration for his continued employment in Malayan Sales Corporation. Petitioner Antonio Co testified that he worked as office manager for MICO from 1978-1982. As office manager, he was the one in charge of transacting business like purchasing, selling and paying the salary of the employees. He was also in charge of the handling of documents pertaining to surety agreements, trust receipts and promissory notes;[44] that when he first joined MICO Metals Corporation, he was able to read the by-laws of the corporation and he came to know that only the chairman and the president can borrow money in behalf of the corporation; that Chua Siok Suy once called him up and told him to secure an invoice so that a credit line can be opened in the bank with a local letter of credit; that when the invoice was secured, he (Co) brought it together with the application for a credit line to Chua Siok Suy, and that he questioned the authority of Chua Siok Suy pointing out that he (Co) is not empowered to sign the document inasmuch as only the latter, as president, was authorized to do so. However, Chua Siok Suy allegedly just said that he had already talked with the Chairman of the Board of PBCom; and that Chua Siok Suy reportedly said that he needed the money to finance a project that he had with the Taipei government. Co also testified that he knew of the application for domestic letter of credit in the sum of Three Hundred Forty-

Q: Before the recess Mr. Gardiola, you stated that the proceeds of the three (3) promissory notes were credited to the accounts of Mico Metals Corporation, now do you know what kind of current account was that which you are referring to? ATTY. ACEJAS: Objection your Honor, that is the disclose of the deposit of defendant Mico Metals Corporation and it cannot disclosed without the authority of the depositor. (sic)[37] That proceeds of the loans which were originally availed of in 1979 were delivered to MICO is bolstered by the fact that more than a year later, specifically on July 14, 1980, MICO through its president, petitioner-surety Charles Lee, requested for an additional loan of Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) from PBCom. The fact that MICO was requesting for an additional loan implied that it has already availed of earlier loans from PBCom. Petitioners allege that PBCom presented no evidence that it remitted payments to cover the domestic and foreign letters of credit. Petitioners placed much reliance on the erroneous decision of the trial court which stated that private respondent PBCom allegedly failed to prove that it actually made payments under the letters of credit since the bank drafts presented as evidence show that they were made in favor of the Bank of Taiwan and First Commercial Bank. Petitioners allegations are untenable. Modern letters of credit are usually not made between natural persons. They involve bank to bank transactions. Historically, the letter of credit was developed to facilitate the sale of goods between, distant and unfamiliar buyers and sellers. It was an arrangement under which a bank, whose credit was acceptable to the seller, would at the instance of the buyer agree to pay drafts drawn on it by the seller, provided that certain documents are presented such as bills of lading accompanied the corresponding drafts. Expansion in the use of letters of credit was a natural development in commercial banking.[38] Parties to a commercial letter of credit include (a) the buyer or the importer, (b) the seller, also referred to as beneficiary, (c) the opening bank which is usually the buyers bank which actually issues the letter of credit, (d) the not ifying bank which is the correspondent bank of the opening bank through which it advises the beneficiary of the letter of credit, (e) negotiating bank which is usually any bank in the city of the beneficiary. The services of the notifying bank must always be utilized if the letter of credit is to be advised to the beneficiary through cable, (f) the paying bank which buys or discounts the drafts contemplated by the letter of credit, if such draft is to be drawn on the opening bank or on another designated bank not in the city of the beneficiary. As a rule, whenever the facilities of the opening bank are used, the beneficiary is supposed to present his drafts to the notifying bank for negotiation and (g) the confirming bank which, upon the request of the beneficiary, confirms the letter of credit issued by the opening bank. From the foregoing, it is clear that letters of credit, being usually bank to bank transactions, involve more than just one bank. Consequently, there is nothing unusual in the fact that the drafts presented in evidence by respondent bank were not made payable to PBCom. As explained by respondent bank, a draft was drawn on the Bank of Taiwan by Ta Jih Enterprises Co., Ltd. of Taiwan, supplier of the goods covered by the foreign letter of credit. Having paid the supplier, the Bank of Taiwan then presented the bank draft for reimbursement by PBComs correspondent bank in Taiwan, the Irving Trust Company which explains the reason why on its face, the draft was made payable to the Bank of Taiwan. Irving Trust Company accepted and endorsed the draft to PBCom. The draft was later transmitted to PBCom to support the latters claim for payment from MICO. MICO accepted the draft upon presentment and negotiated it to PBCom. Petitioners further aver that MICO never requested that legal possession of the merchandise be transferred to PBCom by way of trust receipts. Petitioners insist that assuming that MICO transferred possession of the merchandise to PBCom by way of trust receipts, the same would

Eight Thousand Pesos (P348,000.00); and that a certain Moises Rosete was authorized to claim the check covering the Three Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand Pesos (P348,000.00) from PBCom; and that after claiming the check Rosete brought it to Perez Battery Center for indorsement after which the same was deposited to the personal account of Chua Siok Suy.[45] We consider as incredible and unacceptable the claim of petitioners-sureties that the Board of Directors of MICO was so careless about the business affairs of MICO as well as about their own personal reputation and money that they simply relied on the say so of Chua Siok Suy on matters involving millions of pesos. Under Section 3 (d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Hence, the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents and consequences. Said presumption acquires greater force in the case at bar where not only one but several documents were executed at different times and at different places by the petitioner sureties and Chua Siok Suy as president of MICO. MICO and herein petitioners-sureties insist that Chua Siok Suy was not duly authorized to negotiate for loans in behalf of MICO from PBCom. Petitioners allegation, however, is belied by the July 28, 1980 Certification issued by the corporate secretary of PBCom, Atty. P.B. Barrera, that MICO's Board of Directors gave Chua Siok Suy full authority to negotiate for loans in behalf of MICO with PBCom. In fact, the Certification even provided t hat Chua Siok Suys authority continues until and unless PBCom is notified in writing of the withdrawal thereof by the said Board. Notably, petitioners failed to contest the genuineness of the said Certification which is notarized and to show any written proof of any alleged withdrawal of the said authority given by the Board of Directors to Chua Siok Suy to negotiate for loans in behalf of MICO. There was no need for PBCom to personally inform the petitioners-sureties individually about the terms of the loans, letters of credit and other loan documents. The petitioners-sureties themselves happen to comprise the Board of Directors of MICO, which gave full authority to Chua Siok Suy to negotiate for loans in behalf of MICO. Notice to MICOs authorized representative, Chua Siok Suy, was notice to MICO. The Certification issued by PBComs corporate secretary, Atty. P.B. Barrera, indicated that Chua Siok Suy had full authority to negotiate and sign the necessary documents, in behalf of MICO for loans from PBCom. Respondent PBCom therefore had the right to rely on the said notarized Certification of MICOs Corporate Secretary. Anent petitioners-sureties contention that they obtained no consideration whatsoever on the surety agreements, we need only point out that the consideration for the sureties is the very consideration for the principal obligor, MICO, in the contracts of loan. In the case of Willex Plastic Industries Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,[46] we ruled that the consideration necessary to support a surety obligation need not pass directly to the surety, a consideration moving to the principal alone being sufficient. For a guarantor or surety is bound by the same consideration that makes the contract effective between the parties thereto. It is not necessary that a guarantor or surety should receive any part or benefit, if such there be, accruing to his principal. Petitioners placed too much reliance on the rule in evidence that the burden of proof does not shift whereas the burden of going forward with the evidence does pass from party to party. It is true that said rule is not changed by the fact that the party having the burden of proof has introduced evidence which established prima facie his assertion because such evidence does not shift the burden of proof; it merely puts the adversary to the necessity of producing evidence to meet the prima facie case. Where the defendant merely denies, either generally or otherwise, the allegations of the plaintiffs pleadings, the burden of proof continues to rest on the plaintiff throughout the trial and does not shift to the defendant until the plaintiffs evidence has been presented and duly offered. The defendant has then no burden except to produce evidence sufficient to create a state of equipoise between his proof and that of the plaintiff to defeat the latter, whereas the plaintiff has the burden, as in the beginning, of establishing his case by a preponderance of evidence.[47] But where the defendant has failed to present and marshall evidence sufficient to create a state of equipoise between his proof and that of plaintiff, the prima facie case presented by the plaintiff will prevail.

In the case at bar, respondent PBCom, as plaintiff in the trial court, has in fact presented sufficient documentary and testimonial evidence that proved by preponderance of evidence its subject collection case against the defendants who are the petitioners herein. In view of all the foregoing, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in its appealed Decision. WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 27480 entitled, Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Mico Metals Corporation, Charles Lee, Chua Siok Suy, Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap, Richard Velasco and Alfonso Co, is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 74369 January 29, 1988 DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, NICOLAS and ESTRELLA CRODUA, ELSIE CRODUA-CENIZA and JOEL CENIZA, respondents.

... to execute in favor of Destileria Limtuaco & Co., Inc., a mortgage for ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ... on ... (the land therein described to guarantee the settlement of accounts of Jesus V. Crodua and the compliance by him of all his other obligations with Destileria Limtuaco & Co., Inc. ... Each deed expressed the constitution by the mortgagors ... in favor of Destileria Limtuaco & Co., Inc. (of) a first mortgage for ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ... on ... the land therein described subject to the condition that if Jose V. Crodua settles all his accounts with Destileria Limtuaco & Co., Inc., answers for any loss, if any, of merchandise or property consigned to and under his custody, and complies with his obligations under the Agency Agreement, then ... (the) mortgage becomes null and void and of no effect whatsoever, otherwise, it remains in full force and effect and is subject to foreclosure according to law. Each deed finally declared that the mortgage "shall subsist and continue to be in force as long as the Agency Agreement ... is in force, or is extended and amended," and that foreclosure thereof "shall be instituted in the proper courts of Quezon City and not elsewhere." Subsequently, Destileria Limtuaco, hereafter simply Limtuaco, terminate Jesus Crodua's agency agreement, allegedly upon discovery of a shortage in his accounts in the sum of P170,380.58. To enforce payment of this liability, which Limtuaco claimed had not been satisfied by Jesus Crodua despite demands, the former filed in November, 1984 a complaint for foreclosure of real estate mortgage with the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City 5 against Jesus Crodua, and the mortgagors, Estrella and Nicolas Crodua. 6 The complaint was later amended to implead the other mortgagors, Elsie Crodua-Ceniza and her husband, Joel Ceniza, as additional defendants, and ask for the foreclosure of the property mortgaged by them to Limtuaco. 7 Answers were in due course filed by the defendants-mortgagors. Limtuaco afterwards moved to drop Jesus Crodua as party defendant on the ground that he had left the country and was now residing abroad. 8 This the Court granted by Order dated August 1, 1985. 9 On October 27, 1985 the defendants-mortgagors filed a motion to dismiss Limtuaco's complaint on the following grounds, to wit: 1) the dropping of the principal debtor, Jesus Crodua, from the case resulted in the loss by Limtuaco for any cause of action against them; 2) they were not liable under the Senior Salesman Agency Contract dated April 5, 1982 between Limtuaco and Jesus Crodua, this agreement being separate and distinct form their respective mortgage contracts dated February 24, 1982 and April 24, 1980; and 3) they were entitled to the benefit of excussion since they were mere guarantors; hence the action against them was premature. 10 The motion found merit in the eyes of the Trial Court which consequently dismissed the case by Order dated November 7, 1985. Notice of the order was served on Limtuaco on November 15, 1985. 11 Five (5) days later, on November 20, 1985, Limtuaco filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. This was denied, and a copy of the resolution of denial dated January 2, 1986 was received by it on January 15, 1986. 12 On the day following, January 16, 1986, Limtuaco filed a second motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order, which met the

NARVASA, J.: Involved in the instant appeal on certiorari is the validity of the conclusion of the Trial Court, sustained by the Appellate Court, that the use of the word "guarantee" in two (2) ostensible mortgage deeds suffices to construe the purported mortgages as contracts of guaranty with the concomitant benefit of excussion. 1 (ART. 2058-2060). Jesus Crodua was appointed senior sales agent of Destileria Limtuaco & Co., Inc, for Samar and Leyte (and later, also of Cebu). The "Senior Salesman Agency Contract", dated April 4, 1980, required Jesus Crodua to put up a first mortgage or a surety bond to guarantee or assure faithful compliance with his duties and responsibilities thereunder in an amount of not less than P200,000.00. 2 The pertinent stipulation reads as follows: 9. That to guarantee the faithful settlement of accounts of the SalesAgent with the Company, as well as to answer for any loss, if any, of merchandise or property consigned to and under the custody of the Sales-Agent and to insure compliance with all the other obligations assumed by the Sales-Agent under and by virtue of this agreement, the Sales-Agent shall execute or cause to be executed in favor of the company a first mortgage for not less than P200,000.00 on real estate or estates acceptable to the Company not later than__________ or (a surety bond for not less than P__________ ). All previous real estate mortgages executed and surety bonds secured in favor of the company under the previous agency agreement dated___________ between the parties are deemed valid and subsisting and form a part of the security furnished by the Sales-Agent to the Company for the faithful compliance of his sales agency agreement with the company. The company can require the Sales-Agent to increase the amount of the surety bond or the real estate mortgage from time to time. Failure of the Sales-Agent to put up the required surety bond or real estate mortgage or to increase the sum shall automatically cancel this agency agreement. In fulfillment of that requirement, and evidently at Jesus Crodua's request, two (2) separate deeds of first mortgage were executed by his relatives. The first was executed by Estrella Crodua married to Nicolas Crodua, over real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38649 of the Registry of Deeds for Cebu City; 3 the second, by Elsie CroduaCeniza, married to Joel Ceniza, over land belonging to her, covered by Tax Declaration No. 09015. 4 Both deeds were entitled, "Deed of Real Estate Mortgage." Each deed referred to and quoted verbatim the provision of the agency contract (par. 9) requiring Jesus Crodua to put up a first real estate mortgage or surety bond, and set out the mortgagors' willingness and desire

same fate as the first: it was denied by order of the Trial Court dated January 30, 1985 a copy of which Limtuaco received on February 12, 1986. Eight (8) days afterwards, or on February 20, 1986, Limtuaco filed a petition for certiorari with the Intermediate Appellate Court. By judgment promulgated on April 18, 1986. 13 the Appellate Court denied Limtuaco's petition. It declared that the petition was defective in form and in substance apart from lacking in merit, but that there was no need to pass on the merits of the orders complained of, since other factors demonstrated the unavailability in the premises of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. The Court declared that the Trial Court had not gravely abused its discretion in issuing the orders complained of these having been rendered only after hearing the parties and said orders having applied to the issues the precepts of law and Jurisprudence the Court took to be in point; and if it had incurred in errors at all there were errors of procedure or of judgment, not correctible by certiorari but only by appeal. The Court also pointed out that the order dismissing the complaint was a final one, hence appealable; since it was not appealed-Limtuaco having opted to resort to the special civil action of certiorari, which cannot be a substitute for appeal-the order became final and executory and was thus placed beyond the Appellate Court's power to review, reverse, modify or set aside. The judgment of the Intermediate Appellate Court was timely appealed on certiorari to this Court by Limtuaco. Here, it seeks to induce persuasion as to the validity of the following propositions: 1) Private respondents were liable as mortgagors not as guarantors. The provisions of their mortgage deeds make clear their intention to constitute mortgages over their real property. The term " guarantee" found in the deeds must be construed in the context of the real estate mortgage clearly intended by the parties, hence, regarded as synonymous to the word, "secure." 2) The mortgages directly and immediately subjected the properties on which they were created to the burden of assuming fulfillment of the obligation meant to be secured (Dayrit vs. CA, 36 SCRA 548); and it was its (Limtuaco's) right, as mortgagee, to foreclose said mortgages and cause the sale of the encumbered properties to satisfy the secured outstanding indebtedness (Guanzon v. Argel, 33 SCRA 474.) It was indeed a patent error on the part of the Trial Court to hold the deeds of real estate mortgage as contracts of guaranty, giving to the mortgagors the benefit of excussion. A mortgage is clearly and completely different from a guaranty. According to Article 2047 of the Civil Code By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. If a person binds himself solidarity with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title 1 of this Book shall be observed. (Re joint and solidary obligations; ARTS. 1207-1222) In such case the contract is called a suretyship. 14 A real estate mortgage, on the other hand, according to the same Code, is a contract embodied in a public instrument recorded in the Registry of Property, by which the owner of an immovable (or an alienable real right imposed upon immovables) directly and immediately subjects it, whoever the possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it was constituted. 15 "It is a contract in which the debtor guarantees to the creditor the fulfillment of a principal obligation, subjecting for the faithful compliance

therewith a real property in case of non-fulfillment of said obligation at the time stipulated."
16

While both a contract of guaranty (or suretyship) and one of mortgage have as their object the assurance or guarantee of the performance of a particular principal obligation, in a contract of guaranty, no property is given for this purpose at all; reliance is solely placed on the solvency or credit of the guarantor or surety. In a mortgage, however, it is property, immovable or movable, that is specifically encumbered and subjected to that function of assuring or guaranteeing the satisfaction of that principal obligation. 17 It is the property, rather than the individual financial capacity of the guarantor or surety, that is chiefly relied upon to answer for or guarantee the payment of the debt. Indeed, the rule is that a third party creating a mortgage over his property to guarantee the obligation of a principal debtor, may not be held personally liable for the obligation, his liability being limited to the value of the property mortgaged. It is of the essence of contracts of mortgage that when the principal obligation becomes due, the things in which the pledge or mortgage consists may be alienated for the payment to the creditor. 18 The action or proceeding against the guarantor or surety is a Personal one, 19 and in personam. 20 That against the mortgagor is a real action, 21 as well as quasi in rem. 22 Now, the deeds executed by Estrella and Nicolas Crodua, on the one hand, and by Elsie Crodua-Ceniza and her husband, on the other, are clearly deeds of mortgage. They are so entitled. They are embodied in public instruments and duly recorded in the Registry of Property. They were drawn up in response to the requirement in the agreement between Limtuaco and Jesus Crodua for the execution either of " a first mortgage" or a "surety bond" "to guarantee the faithful settlement of accounts of the Sales-Agent with the Company as well as to answer for any loss, if any, of merchandise or property consigned to and under the custody of the Sales-Agent and to insure compliance with all the other obligations assumed by the Sales-Agent under and by virtue of ... (said) agreement" - the term "first mortgage" being used no less than three (3) times. The parties are denominated "mortgagors" and "mortgagees." They clearly state that the mortgagors were thereby constituting a first mortgage on their property to guarantee or secure Jesus Crodua's obligations. The mortgage was constituted over particularly described property, and was declared "subject to foreclosure according to law." The Trial Court disregarded all these clear indications, features and characteristics of a real estate mortgage. Seizing instead upon the single word " guarantee" in the clause, "to guarantee the faithful settlement of accounts ... as well as to answer for any loss, if any, of merchandise or property ... and to insure faithful compliance with all other obligations ..." and ignoring, too, the terms "answer for" and "insure" found in the same clause-as well as the obvious fact that the word is synonymous to "secure, assure, ensure, answer for, serve as warrant," and that indeed the Civil Code employs the word in the context of a mortgage or pledge: it says, in Article 2089, that where several things are given by way of mortgage or pledge, the parties may agree that "each one of them guarantees only a determinate portion of the credit"-utilized that solitary word, "guarantee" as basis for declaring the deeds to be contracts of guaranty instead of mortgage and construed them as granting to the mortgagors the benefit of excussion under Article 2058 of the Civil Code. In doing so, the Court not only ignored and disregarded, but even distorted the obvious meaning of language. This was utterly unjustified and unjustifiable. It was in the premises a whimsical, capricious, arbitrary act of judgment or exercise of discretion, an error of so serious a nature as to call for the extension of this Court's correcting hand. There can thus be no doubt that from the substantive aspect, Limtuaco had every reason to complain against and seek negation of the Trial Court's order of dismissal of its complaint dated November 7, 1985. It is in the procedural aspect that Limtuaco's cause would seem to falter.

The order of November 7, 1985 was a final order, not an interlocutory or incidental one, within the meaning of Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which specifies the judgments or orders which are subject to appeal. It finally disposed of the pending action, leaving nothing more to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits, thus putting an end to the litigation at said court's level. 23 The obvious remedy against such a final order of a Regional Trial Court is an appeal in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 24 But instead of resorting to this ordinary remedy of appeal, Limtuaco's counsel availed of the extraordinary remedy of a special civil action of certiorari in the Intermediate Appellate Court, under Rule 65 of the Rules of court. The choice was clearly wrong. The availability of the right of appeal obviously precluded recourse to the special civil action of certiorari. This is axiomatic. It is a proposition made plain by Section 1 of Rule 65 which lays down, as a condition for the filing of a certiorari petition that there be "no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." In the case at bar, the remedy of appeal indisputably existed and could have been availed of. There has furthermore been no showing, or even an attempt to show, that appeal would not have been as adequate and efficacious a remedy, although not quite as speedy, as a special civil action of certiorari, a circumstance which might have excused the failure to appeal and render appropriate the resort to certiorari. 25 Clearly erroneous therefore, was the choice of remedy of Limtuaco's counsel to obtain a review and reversal of the Trial Court's Order of November 7, 1985. Limtuaco's counsel also erred in filing a second motion for the reconsideration of the Order of November 7, 1985. Such a second motion is clearly proscribed by paragraph 4 of this Court's Interim Rules: "No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment." 26 The time during which such an unauthorized second motion for reconsideration was pending, could not therefore be deducted from the 15-day period of appeal, unlike the period during which the first motion was pending. 27 It thus appears that the period of appeal lapsed, and the order sought to be appelled consequently became final and executory, during the time that the second motion for reconsideration was pending. It would seem that the remedy of appeal was lost to Limtuaco; and by established jurisprudence, it could not remedy the situation by substituting the special civil action of certiorari for the lost appeal. 28 The case at bar may of course be resolved by simply applying the doctrine that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari cannot be resorted to as a substitute for the lapsed remedy of appeal. This, however, would result in the infliction of an injustice on a party by a judgment that evidently was rendered whimsically and capriciously, ignoring and disregarding uncontroverted facts and familiar legal principles without any valid cause whatsoever. Relief to that party would be foreclosed on account of its counsel's mistake in not taking account of the relatively new proscription of second motions for reconsideration, and in the choice of remedies for the vindication of his client's rights. The mistake was occasioned no doubt by said counsel's overmastering desire to correct a clear and patent error and his perhaps overconfident expectation of bringing this about by laying the facts and the law before the court a second time. Certainly, counsel cannot be faulted for lack of diligence and zeal. He filed his first motion for reconsideration on November 20, 1985 on the 5th day after receiving a copy of the order dismissing his client's case. He filed his second motion for reconsideration on January 16, 1986, one day following his receipt of the order denying his first MR. At that time, he of course had up to the 26th of January to perfect an appeal. He went up to the Court of Appeals on certiorari onFebruary 20, l986, on the 8th day after receipt of the denial of his second motion for reconsideration. There is, too, no showing of any prejudice suffered by the Croduas by the mistaken invocation of remedies by Limtuaco's counsel. The delay from January 26, 1986 (when appeal could and should have been perfected by Limtuaco) to February 20, 1986 (when the certiorari action was filed) cannot be accorded any significance.

The peculiar circumstances of this case warrant, as we held in Republic v. Court of appeals, 107 SCRA 504, 524, the "exercise once more of our exclusive prerogative to suspend our own rules or to exempt a particular case from its operation as in ... Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et. al ., (83 SCRA 459, 478-480 [1978]),thus: '... The Rules have been drafted with the primary objective of enhancing fair trials and expediting justice. As a corollary, if their applications and operation tend to subvert and defeat instead of promote and enhance it, their suspension is justified...' " 29 And as we stated in afairly recent case 30 We cannot just ignore petitioner's plea for a review of his case in this instance. There is not the slightest indication of malice on his part or of a desire to delay the proceedings and to transgress the rules on procedure. If at all, his was an honest mistake or calculation worsed by some fortuitous occurrence which we deem condonable under the circumstances. For we have, in many cases, granted relief where a stringent application of the requirement of timeliness of pleadings would have denied a litigant substantial justice and equity. Suffice it to note that the rules on technicality were promulgated to secure not to override substantial justice. (Gregorio vs. CA, 72 SCRA 120) As it should be in this case especially because the petition appears also to be impressed with merit. WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals promagated on April 18, 1986 and the Order of the Trial Court dated November 7, 1985 are set aside. The petitioner's action for foreclosure of mortgage against the private respondents, docketed as Civil Case No. Q44423, is reinstated and the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City now having jurisdiction over the action is ordered to proceed therewith and decide it in due course, with all deliberate dispatch. Costs against private respondents. This judgment is immediately executory and no extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration thereof will be entertained.