BALDOMERO INCIONG, JR. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANK OF

COMMUNICATIONS
G.R. No. 96405 June 26, 1996

FACTS:
INCIONG, JR.is adjudged solidarily liable and ordered to pay to the plaintiff Philippine Bank of
Communications, Cagayan de Oro City, the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS, with interest
thereon from May 5, 1983. Petitioner's liability resulted from the promissory note in the amount
of P50,000.00 against the three obligors. The complaint was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff
to prosecute the case.

Meanwhile, only the summons addressed to petitioner was served as the sheriff learned that
defendant Naybe had gone to Saudi Arabia. Petitioner alleged that sometime in January 1983, he
was approached by his friend, Rudy Campos, who told him that he was a partner of Pio Tio, the
branch manager of private respondent in Cagayan de Oro City, in the falcata logs operation
business. Naybe was interested in the business and would contribute a chainsaw to the venture.
Although Naybe had no money to buy the equipment Pio Tio had assured Naybe of the approval
of a loan he would make with private respondent. Petitioner allegedly acceded but with the
understanding that he would only be a co-maker for the loan of P5,000.00. Thus, it was by trickery,
fraud and. misrepresentation that he was made liable for the amount of P50,000.00.

In the aforementioned decision of the lower court, it noted that the typewritten figure "P50,000-"
clearly appears directly below the admitted signature of the petitioner in the promissory note.
Petitioner appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals which, affirmed that of the lower
court. It supports petitioner's allegation that they were...induced to sign the promissory note on the
belief that it was only for P5,000. 00, adding that it was Campos who caused the amount of the
loan to be increased to P50,000.00.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Inciong should be held liable

RULING:
Yes. Inciong considers himself a guarantor in the pledge note. It also based its case on Article 2080
of the Civil Code, which provides that the guarantors are to be released of their commitments once
the creditors discharge their debtors. It should be remembered, though, that Inciong did not sign
the promissory note as a guarantor. He signed it as a co-maker in solidarity.

To all intents and purposes, a guarantor who ties himself in solidum with the principal debtor does
not become a joint-debtor. There is a distinction between a solidary co-debtor and a solidum fiador.
The latter, which is not liable to pay the debt until the assets of the principal debtor have been
exhausted, retains all the other privileges, acts and benefits which pertain to it on the basis of the
fiansa; while a solidary co-debtor has no other rights than those given to him.
In terms of the fact that the promissory note specified in this case specifically notes that the three
signatories therein are jointly and severally responsible, either one, any or both of them can be
charged against the responsibility in its whole. The decision is left to the solidarity creditor (PBC)
to decide on whom the collection is to be administered. Consequently, the dismissal of the case
against Pantanosas cannot be considered to have also discharged Inciong from liability. As far as
Naybe is concerned, it is sufficient to state that the court has never acquired jurisdiction over him.
Inciong, therefore, will have recourse only against its co-makers, as provided for by law.