Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

aside the decision of the lower court and denied the Motion for

Topic Solidary Obligations Reconsideration of RCBC subsequently.

Case No. G.R. No. 85396 October 27, 1989
Case Name RCBC v. Court of Appeals 1. W/N an SEC order of Suspension of Payment of all claims during the
Full Case RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING pendency of a rehabilitation proceeding against the principal debtor
Name CORPORATION, petitioner, bars the creditor from recovering from the surety.
MILLS, INC. and ALFREDO CHING, respondents.
Ponente MELENCIO-HERRERA, J. NO. In fine, the SEC injunctive Order is of no effect as far as the respondent
Doctrine Under Article 1207 of the Civil Code, when there are two or more Surety, Alfredo Ching, is concerned. He can be sued separately to enforce his
debtors in one and the same obligation, the presumption is that liability as Surety for PBM (Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R.
the obligation is joint so that each of the debtors is liable only for No. 78412, September 26, 1989).
a proportionate part of the debt. There is a solidary liability only
when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides The Court ruled that as surety, Ching was charged as an original
or when the nature of the obligation so requires. promissory by virtue of
Nature Petition to review decision of CA ruling that it was precipitate and his primary obligation under the Comprehensive Surety Agreement. The lower
improper for the lower Court to have continued with the court had ruled correctly finding the case without any genuine issue
proceedings despite the SEC Order of suspension, set aside the of fact and ripe for judgment.
lower Court Decision and ordered it to hold in abeyance the
determination of the merits invoked in CV-42333 pending the DISPOSITIVE
outcome of SEC Case No. 2250.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 30 June 1988, and
RELEVANT FACTS its Resolution denying reconsideration thereof, dated 6 October 1988, are SET
ASIDE. The judgment of the lower Court is hereby REINSTATED and made
 Alfredo Ching signed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement 1xecutor as far as respondent, Alfredo Ching, is concerned.
with RCBC which bounded him
to jointly and severally guarantee the prompt payment of all Philippine Costs against private respondents, Philippine Blooming Mills and Alfredo
Blooming Mills (PBM) obligations. PBM had filed several applications Ching.
for letters of credit to RCBC and obligated itself to pay on demand for
all drafts drawn under the credits. RCBC opened the letters and SO ORDERED.
imported various goods for PBM’s account which was duly
acknowledged by PBM.
Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.
 Less than a year later, RCBC filed a Complaint for
collection of sum against PBM and Ching. PBM then filed a
Petition for Suspension of Payments with the SEC and NO SEPARATE OPINIONS
sought rehabilitation. SEC approved the revised rehabilitation plan
and ordered its implementation.
 RCBC followed its claims with the Trial Court unopposed
and contended that the respondents had not denied the
indebtedness and there was no genuine issue. On appeal, the CA set