Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Issue: WON petitioners are liable for payment of the 1979 transaction under the
continuing suretyship agreement they executed in 1977. Assuming that they are,
what is the extent of their liability?
The Supreme Court held that Uy & Dio are liable. The agreement they executed
in 1977 is a continuing suretyship, one which is not limited to a single transaction
but which contemplates a succession of liabilities, for which, as they accrue, the
guarantor becomes liable. The agreement that petitioners signed expressly
provided that it is a continuing guaranty and shall be in full force and effect until
written notice to the bank that it has been revoked by the surety. As to the
2nd issue, petitioners are only liable up to the maximum limit fixed in the
continuing suretyship agreements (Php800,000 for Dio and Php300,000 for Uy).
The law is clear that a guarantor may bind himself for less, but not for more than
the principal debtor, both as regards the amount and the onerous nature of the
conditions (Art. 2054). CA decision ordering petitioners to pay P2,397,883.68
which represents the amount due inclusive of interest and charges, is modified.