McConn v Haragan

Facts:

While the hearing of Civil Case was pending the Bureau of Immigration advised CFI that Paul
Haragan had applied for an immigration clearance and a re-entry permit to enable him to leave the Philippines
for 15 days only and requested whether the court had any objection thereto.

The court required Haragan to file a bond of P4,000 "to answer for his return to the Philippines and the
prosecution of his case against him, that if he failed to return, the bond will answer pro tanto for any judgment
that may be rendered against him".

Thereupon, Haragan submitted a bond, and the Associated Insurance & Surety Co., as principal and surety,
respectively.

The court allowed Haragan's "departure from the Philippines for a short stay abroad".

On the date set for the hearing, Haragan's counsel informed the court that Haragan is not able to
return to the Philippines because the DFA ban him from returning to the Philippines.

Thereafter, the court rendered judgment, against Haragan to pay to plaintiff the sum of P5,500,

After this judgment had become final and executory, plaintiff moved for the execution of the bond to satisfy
the judgment against Haragan.

The surety company objected.

Issue:

Whether the Surety Company is liable to McConn under the bond in view of
Haragan’s failure to return to the Philippines.

Ruling:
 No.
Rationale:
 A careful reading of the surety bond, indicates that the surety's principal commitment 
and on the otherhand if defendant Haragan should return to the Philippines on or before
September 16, 1955, said bond will not answer for the judgment. It is now the
contention of the Associated Insurance that since it was the Republic of the Philippines
(obligee under the bond) who rendered the return of defendant Haragan to the
Philippines impossible, said surety company is thereby released from its obligation, and
cites in support thereof Articles 1266 and 2076 of the New Civil Code. The Court finds it
tenable and well grounded, for as the surety company has so well stated 'where the
principal obligation (of returning to the Philippines) has been extinguished by the action
of the obligee, Philippine Government in preventing such return, the accessory
obligation of the surety is likewise extinguished and the bond released of its liability.'
Paraphrasing the last paragraph of the bond in a negative way, it will read thus: 'should
he (not) fail to do so, said bond will (not) answer  pro tanto for any  judgment that may
be rendered against him.It is in accord with the principle that “The debtor in obligation
to do shall also be released when the prestation becomes legally or physically
impossible without the fault of the obligor.” (Article 1266, Civil Code of the Philippines.)