Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PICZON
MALCOLM, J. BARREDO, J.
Facts Facts
Ruling:
Facts In the Court of First Instance of Manila, Wise & Co. Facts
instituted civil case No. 41129 against Cornelio C. David for
the recovery of a certain sum of money David was an agent of Issue
Wise & Co. and the amount claimed from him was the result
of a liquidation of accounts showing that he was indebted in Ruling
said amount. In said case Wise & Co. asked and obtained a
preliminary attachment of David's property. To avoid the
execution of said attachment, David succeeded in having his BPI gives no cogent reason in withholding its consent to the
Attorney Tanglao execute on January 16, 1932, a power of substitution, other than its desire to preserve its causes of
attorney (Exhibit A) in his favor, with the following clause: action and legal recourse against the sureties of ELISCON. It
must be remembered, however, that while a surety is
solidarily liable with the principal debtor, his obligation to
To sign for me as guarantor for himself in his pay only arises upon the principal debtor’s failure or
indebtedness to Wise & Company of Manila, which refusal to pay. A contract of surety is an accessory promise
indebtedness appears in civil case No. 41129, of the by which a person binds himself for another already
Court of First Instance of Manila, and to mortgage bound, and agrees with the creditor to satisfy the
my lot (No. 517-F of the subdivision plan Psd-20, obligation if the debtor does not. [] A surety is an insurer of
being a portion of lot No. 517 of the cadastral survey the debt; he promises to pay the principal’s debt if the
of Angeles, G. L. R. O. Cad. Rec. No. 124), to principal will not pay.
guarantee the said obligations to the Wise &
Company, Inc., of Manila.
In the case at bar, there was no indication that the principal
debtor will default in payment. In fact, DBP, which had
Issue stepped into the shoes of ELISCON, was capable of payment.
Its authorized capital stock was increased by the government.
Ruling [39] More importantly, the National Development Company
took over the business of ELISCON and undertook to pay
There is no doubt that under Exhibit, A, Tanglao empowered ELISCON’s creditors, and earmarked for that purpose the
David, in his name, to enter into a contract of suretyship and a amount of P4,015,534.54 for payment to BPI.[40]
contract of mortgage of the property described in the
document, with Wise & Co. However, David used said power
of attorney only to mortgage the property and did not enter
into contract of suretyship. Nothing is stated in Exhibit B to
the effect that Tanglao became David's surety for the payment
of the sum in question. Neither is this inferable from any of
the clauses thereof, and even if this inference might be made,
it would be insufficient to create an obligation of suretyship
which, under the law, must be express and cannot be
presumed.
GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Facts
Issue
Ruling