Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agro Conglomerates, Inc. and Mario Soriano vs. Ca and Regent Savings and Loan Bank, Inc
Agro Conglomerates, Inc. and Mario Soriano vs. Ca and Regent Savings and Loan Bank, Inc
CA and
REGENT SAVINGS and LOAN BANK, INC,
He has the right, after paying the holder, to obtain reimbursement from
the party accommodated, since the relation between them has in effect
become one of principal and surety, the accommodation party being the
surety. The surety’s liability to the creditor or promisee of the principal is
said to be direct, primary and absolute; in other words, he is directly and
equally bound with the principal. And the creditor may proceed against
any one of the solidary debtors.
FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION vs. ABDULGANI
SALIK
They filed a complaint with the POEA against Pan Pacific for Violation of
the Labor Code with claims for refund of a total amount of P30K .
ISSUE: WON, Finman is liable basing on its suretyship with Pan Pacific.
Applying the foregoing principles to the case at bar, it can be very well
said that even if Finman was not impleaded in the instant case, still it
can be held jointly and severally liable for all claims arising from
recruitment violation of Pan Pacific.
VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION vs.CA
FACTS: Plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of an Isuzu jeepney
which was forcibly and unlawfully taken by Bartolome while parked at
their residence. Plaintiffs then filed with the RTC for replevin.
Dominador filed with the trial court a motion for judgment against
plaintiffs’ bond. RTC granted. It ordered petitioners to pay 150k.
SRBII and the Suico spouses were unable to pay their obligations
prompting Metrobank to extra-judicially foreclose the four mortgages.
ISSUE: WoN spouses are solidarily liable with SRBII in view of the
surety agreement.
RULING: YES. The time-honored rule is that the surety obligates himself
to pay the debt if the principal debtor will not pay, regardless of whether
or not the latter is financially capable to fulfil his obligation.
Thus, a creditor can go directly against the surety although the principal
debtor is solvent and is able to pay or no prior demand is made on the
principal debtor. Although a surety contract is secondary to the principal
obligation, the liability of the surety is direct, primary and absolute; or
equivalent to that of a regular party to the undertaking.
FACTS: PMRDC obtained two loans from Emerita Garon. To secure the
payment of both loans, PMRDC undertook to assign Garon its leasehold
rights over two spaces at the Monumento Plaza Commercial Complex.
PMRDC failed to pay. Garon filed a complaint before the RTC. The RTC
ruled in favor of Garon. The CA affirmed the RTC’s finding that PMRDC
was not relieved of its liability despite the enforcement of Garon’s right
against SICI; so long as the debt has not been fully paid, SICI is still
liable.
Suretyship arises upon the solidary binding of a person with the principal
debtor, for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation. A surety is considered
in law as being the same party as the debtor in relation to whatever is
adjudged as touching the obligation of the latter, and their liabilities are
interwoven as to be inseparable.
Kalingo posted 2 surety bonds with PCIC, (1) Amounting to 1.05M; (2)
Amounting to 84K.
PNCC filed with the RTC a complaint for collection of a sum of money.
RTC ruled in favour of PNCC, ordering PCIC and Kalingo to jointly pay
the 1.05M. CA modified, PCIC is also liable for the second surety
amounting to 84K but that award was not prayed for by PNCC.
ISSUE: WoN PCIC shall be liable for the second bond (84K).
PNCC complied with the written claim provision, but only with respect to
PCIC Bond No. 27547 (84K). Conversely, nothing in the records shows
that PNCC ever complied with the provision with respect to PCIC Bond
No. 27546 (1.05M). Under the circumstances, PNCC’s cause of action
with respect to PCIC Bond No. 27546 did not exist, such that no relief for
collection thereunder may be validly awarded.