Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-20567 July 30, 1965

for all pa *ents *ade to itB to endorse for deposit or encash*ent checks, *one order and treasur warrants which said Bank *a receive, and to appl said pa *ents to the settle*ent of said credit acco**odation. This power of attorne shall also re*ain irrevocable until our total indebtedness to the said Bank have been full li>uidated. !E<hibit E$ ATAC6 delivered to the Bureau of Public ;orks, and the latter accepted, asphalt to the total value of P()1,(22.:'. 6f this a*ount the Bank re+ularl collected, fro* April '1, 19(7 to Nove*ber 17, 19(7, P152,)7'.51. Thereafter, for une<plained reasons, the Bank ceased to collect, until in 19:' its investi+ators found that *ore *one s were pa able to ATAC6 fro* the Public ;orks office, because the latter had allowed *other creditor to collect funds due to ATAC6 under the sa*e purchase order to a total of P)11,')5.(1. /ts de*ands on the principal debtor and the "uret havin+ been refused, the Bank sued both in the Court of .irst /nstance of Manila to recover the balance of P1:7,:2).17 as of .ebruar 1:, 19:5, plus interests and costs. 6n 6ctober (, 19:7, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads3 ;?ERE.6RE, 0ud+*ent is hereb rendered as follows3 1. 6rderin+ defendants, Ada*s - Ta+uba Corporation and Manila "uret .idelit Co., /nc., to pa plaintiff, Philippines National Bank, the su* of P18(,(2'.)( as of .ebruar '(, 19:2, *inus the a*ount of P7,555 which defendant, Manila "uret Co., /nc. paid fro* March, 19:2 to 6ctober, 19:2 with interest at the rate of :C per annu* fro* .ebruar ':, 19:2, until full paid provided that the total a*ount that should be paid b defendant Manila "uret Co., /nc., on account of this case shall not e<ceed P8:,555.55, and to pa the costsB '. 6rderin> cross%defendant, Ada*s - Ta+uba Corporation, and third%part defendant, Pedro A. Ta+uba, 0ointl and severall , to pa cross and third% part plaintiff, Manila "uret - .idelit Co., /nc., whatever a*ount the latter has paid or shall pa under this 0ud+*entB ). #is*issin+ the co*plaint insofar as the clai* for 18C special ta< is concernedB and (. #is*issin+ the counterclai* of defendants Ada*s - Ta+uba Corporation and Manila "uret - .idelit Co., /nc.

PHILIPPINE N TION L ! N", petitioner, vs. M NIL SURET# $%& 'I(ELIT# CO., INC. $%& THE COURT O' PPE LS )S*+o%& (,-,.,o%/, respondents. Besa, Galang and Medina for petitioner. De Santos and Delfino for respondents. RE#ES, J.!.L., J.: The Philippine National Bank petitions for the review and reversal of the decision rendered b the Court of Appeals !"econd #ivision$, in its case CA%&.R. No. '(')'% R, dis*issin+ the Bank,s co*plaint a+ainst respondent Manila "uret - .idelit Co., /nc., and *odif in+ the 0ud+*ent of the Court of .irst /nstance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 11'2). The *aterial facts of the case, as found b the appellate Court, are as follows3 The Philippine National Bank had opened a letter of credit and advanced thereon 41'5,555.55 to Ed+in+ton 6il Refiner for 7,555 tons of hot asphalt. 6f this a*ount, ',555 tons worth P'89,555.55 were released and delivered to Ada*s - Ta+uba Corporation !known as ATAC6$ under a trust receipt +uaranteed b Manila "uret - .idelit Co. up to the a*ount of P8:,555.55. To pa for the asphalt, ATAC6 constituted the Bank its assi+nee and attorne %in%fact to receive and collect fro* the Bureau of Public ;orks the a*ount aforesaid out of funds pa able to the assi+nor under Purchase 6rder No. 819(8. This assi+n*ent !E<hibit =A=$ stipulated that3 The conditions of this assi+n*ent are as follows3 1. The sa*e shall re*ain irrevocable until the said credit acco*odation is full li>uidated. '. The P?/@/PP/NE NAT/6NA@ BANA is hereb appointed as our Attorne %in%.act for us and in our na*e, place and stead, to collect and to receive the pa *ents to be *ade b virtue of the aforesaid Purchase 6rder, with full power and authorit to e<ecute and deliver on our behalf, receipt

.ro* said decision, onl the defendant "uret Co*pan has dul perfected its appeal. The Central Bank of the Philippines did not appeal, while defendant ATAC6 failed to perfect its appeal. The Bank recoursed to the Court of Appeals, which rendered an adverse decision and *odified the 0ud+*ent of the court of ori+in as to the suret ,s liabilit . /ts *otions for reconsideration havin+ proved unavailin+, the Bank appealed to this Court. The Court of Appeals found the Bank to have been ne+li+ent in havin+ stopped collectin+ fro* the Bureau of Public ;orks the *one s fallin+ due in favor of the principal debtor, ATAC6, fro* and after Nove*ber 17, 19(7, before the debt was full collected, thereb allowin+ such funds to be taken and e<hausted b other creditors to the pre0udice of the suret , and held that the Bank,s ne+li+ence resulted in e<oneration of respondent Manila "uret - .idelit Co*pan . This holdin+ is now assailed b the Bank. /t contends the power of attorne obtained fro* ATAC6 was *erel in additional securit in its favor, and that it was the dut of the suret , and not that of the creditor, owed see to it that the obli+or fulfills his obli+ation, and that the creditor owed the suret no dut of active dili+ence to collect an , su* fro* the principal debtor, citin+ Judge Advocate General vs. Court of Appeals, &.R. No. @%15281, 6ctober '), 19:7. This ar+u*ent of appellant Bank *isses the point. The Court of Appeals did not hold the Bank answerable for ne+li+ence in failin+ to collect from the principal debtor but for its ne+lect in collectin+ the su*s due to the debtor fro* the Bureau of Public ;orks, contrar to its dut as holder of an e<clusive and irrevocable power of attorne to *ake such collections, since an a+ent is re>uired to act with the care of a +ood father of a fa*il !Civ. Code, Art. 1778$ and beco*es liable for the da*a+es which the principal *a suffer throu+h his non%perfor*ance !Civ. Code, Art. 177($. Certainl , the Bank could not e<pect that the Bank would dili+entl perfor* its dut under its power of attorne , but because the could not have collected fro* the Bureau even if the had atte*pted to do so. /t *ust not be for+otten that the Bank,s power to collect was e<pressl *ade irrevocable, so that the Bureau of Public ;orks could ver well refuse to *ake pa *ents to the principal debtor itself, and a fortiori re0ect an de*ands b the suret . Even if the assi+n*ent with power of attorne fro* the principal debtor were considered as *ere additional securit still, b allowin+ the assi+ned funds to be e<hausted without notif in+ the suret , the Bank deprived the for*er of an possibilit of recoursin+ a+ainst that securit . The Bank thereb e<onerated the suret , pursuant to Article '575 of the Civil Code3 ART. '575. D The +uarantors, even though they be solidary, are released fro* their obli+ation whenever b co*e act of the creditor the cannot be

subro+ated to the ri+hts, *ort+a+es and preferences of the latter. !E*phasis supplied.$ The appellant points out to its letter of de*and, E<hibit =A=, addressed to the Bureau of Public ;orks, on Ma :, 19(9, and its letter to ATAC6, E<hibit =&=, infor*in+ the debtor that as of its date, 6ctober )1, 19(9, its outstandin+ balance was P1:2,)8(.7). "aid E<hibit =&= has no bearin+ on the issue whether the Bank has e<ercised due dili+ence in collectin+ fro* the Bureau of Public ;orks, since the letter was addressed to ATAC6, and the funds were to co*e fro* elsewhere. As to the letter of de*and on the Public ;orks office, it does not appear that an repl thereto was *adeB nor that the de*and was pressed, nor that the debtor or the suret were ever apprised that pa *ent was not bein+ *ade. The fact re*ains that because of the Bank,s inactivit the other creditors were enabled to collect P18),785.)1, when the balance due to appellant Bank was onl P1:7,:2).17. The findin+ of ne+li+ence *ade b the Court of Appeals is thus not onl conclusive on us but full supported b the evidence. Even if the Court of Appeals erred on the second reason it advanced in support of the decision now under appeal, because the rules on application of pa *ents, +ivin+ preference to secured obli+ations are onl operative in cases where there are several distinct debts, and not where there is onl one that is partiall secured, the error is of no i*portance, since the principal reason based on the Bank,s ne+li+ence furnishes ade>uate support to the decision of the Court of Appeals that the suret was thereb released. ;?ERE.6RE, the appealed decision is affir*ed, with costs a+ainst appellant Philippine National Bank. Beng on, C.J., Concepcion, !aredes, Di on, "egala, Ma#alintal, Beng on, J.!., and $aldivar, JJ., concur. Bautista Angelo and Barerra, JJ., too# no part.