SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 160466, January 17, 2005 ]SPS. ALFREDO v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK +
SPOUSES ALFREDO AND SUSANA ONG, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
SPS. ALFREDO v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK +
SPOUSES ALFREDO AND SUSANA ONG, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39255, dated February 17, 2003, affirming the decision of the trial court denying petitioners' motion
to dismiss.
The facts: Baliwag Mahogany Corporation (BMC) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of finished wood products. Petitioners-spouses Alfredo and Susana Ong are its President and Treasurer, respectively.
On April 20, 1992, respondent Philippine Commercial International Bank (now Equitable-Philippine Commercial International Bank or E-PCIB) filed a case for collection of a sum of money[1] against petitioners-spouses. Respondent bank sought to hold petitioners-spouses liable as sureties on the three (3) promissory notes they issued to secure some of BMC's loans, totalling five million pesos (P5,000,000.00).
The complaint alleged that in 1991, BMC needed additional capital for its business and applied for various loans, amounting to a total of five million pesos, with the respondent bank. Petitioners-spouses acted as sureties for these loans and issued three (3) promissory notes for the purpose. Under the terms of the notes, it was stipulated that respondent bank may consider debtor BMC in default and demand payment of the remaining balance of the loan upon the levy, attachment or garnishment of any of its properties, or upon BMC's insolvency, or if it is declared to be in a state of suspension of payments. Respondent bank granted BMC's loan applications.
On November 22, 1991, BMC filed a petition for rehabilitation and suspension of payments with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after its properties were attached by creditors. Respondent bank considered debtor BMC in default of its obligations and sought to collect payment thereof from petitioners-spouses as sureties. In due time, petitioners-spouses filed their Answer.
On October 13, 1992, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)[2] was executed by debtor BMC, the petitioners-spouses as President and Treasurer of BMC, and the consortium of creditor banks of BMC (of which respondent bank is included). The MOA took effect upon its approval by the SEC on November 27, 1992.[3]
Thereafter, petitioners-spouses moved to dismiss[4] the complaint. They argued that as the SEC declared the principal debtor BMC in a state of suspension of payments and, under the MOA, the creditor banks, including respondent bank, agreed to temporarily suspend any pending civil action against the debtor BMC, the benefits of the MOA should be extended to petitioners-spouses who acted as BMC's sureties in their contracts of loan with respondent bank. Petitioners-spouses averred that respondent bank is barred from pursuing its collection case filed against them.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioners-spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's ruling that a creditor can proceed against petitioners-spouses as surety independently of its right to proceed against the principal debtor BMC.
Hence this appeal.
Petitioners-spouses claim that the collection case filed against them by respondent bank should be dismissed for three (3) reasons: First, the MOA provided that during its effectivity, there shall be a suspension of filing or pursuing of collection cases against the BMC and this provision should benefit petitioners as sureties. Second, principal debtor BMC has been placed under suspension of payment of debts by the SEC; petitioners contend that it would prejudice them if the principal debtor BMC would enjoy the suspension of payment of its debts while petitioners, who acted only as sureties for some of BMC's debts, would be compelled to make the payment; petitioners add that compelling them to pay is contrary to Article 2063 of the Civil Code which provides that a compromise between the creditor and principal debtor benefits the guarantor and should not prejudice the latter. Lastly, petitioners rely on Article 2081 of the Civil Code which provides that: "the guarantor may set up against the creditor all the defenses which pertain to the principal debtor and are inherent in the debt; but not those which are purely personal to the debtor." Petitioners aver that if the principal debtor BMC can set up the defense of suspension of payment of debts and filing of collection suits against respondent bank, petitioners as sureties should likewise be allowed to avail of these defenses.
We find no merit in petitioners' contentions.
Reliance of petitioners-spouses on Articles 2063 and 2081 of the Civil Code is misplaced as these provisions refer to contracts of guaranty. They do not apply to suretyship contracts. Petitioners-spouses are not guarantors but sureties of BMC's debts. There is a sea of difference in the rights and liabilities of a guarantor and a surety. A guarantor insures the solvency of the debtor while a surety is an insurer of the debt itself. A contract of guaranty gives rise to a subsidiary obligation on the part of the guarantor. It is only after the creditor has proceeded against the properties of the principal debtor and the debt remains unsatisfied that a guarantor can be held liable to answer for any unpaid amount. This is the principle of excussion. In a suretyship contract, however, the benefit of excussion is not available to the surety as he is principally liable for the payment of the debt. As the surety insures the debt itself, he obligates himself to pay the debt if the principal debtor will not pay, regardless of whether or not the latter is financially capable to fulfill his obligation. Thus, a creditor can go directly against the surety although the principal debtor is solvent and is able to pay or no prior demand is made on the principal debtor. A surety is directly, equally and absolutely bound with the principal debtor for the payment of the debt and is deemed as an original promissor and debtor from the beginning.[5]
Under the suretyship contract entered into by petitioners-spouses with respondent bank, the former obligated themselves to be solidarily bound with the principal debtor BMC for the payment of its debts to respondent bank amounting to five million pesos (P5,000,000.00). Under Article 1216 of the Civil Code,[6] respondent bank as creditor may proceed against petitioners-spouses as sureties despite the execution of the MOA which provided for the suspension of payment and filing of collection suits against BMC. Respondent bank's right to collect payment from the surety exists independently of its right to proceed directly against the principal debtor. In fact, the creditor bank may go against the surety alone without prior demand for payment on the principal debtor.[7]
The provisions of the MOA regarding the suspension of payments by BMC and the non-filing of collection suits by the creditor banks pertain only to the property of the principal debtor BMC. Firstly, in the rehabilitation receivership filed by BMC, only the properties of BMC were mentioned in the petition with the SEC.[8] Secondly, there is nothing in the MOA that involves the liabilities of the sureties whose properties are separate and distinct from that of the debtor BMC. Lastly, it bears to stress that the MOA executed by BMC and signed by the creditor-banks was approved by the SEC whose jurisdiction is limited only to corporations and corporate assets. It has no jurisdiction over the properties of BMC's officers or sureties.
Clearly, the collection suit filed by respondent bank against petitioners-spouses as sureties can prosper. The trial court's denial of petitioners' motion to dismiss was proper.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo at 107-112.
[2] CA Rollo at 34-88.
[3] Id., at 119-129.
[4] Id., at 31-32.
[5] Palmares vs. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 422 (1998).
[6] Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors [the surety or the principal debtor] or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected.
[7] Machetti vs. Hospicio de San Jose and Fidelity & Surety Co., 43 Phil. 297 (1922).
[8] Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 788 (1989).
The facts: Baliwag Mahogany Corporation (BMC) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of finished wood products. Petitioners-spouses Alfredo and Susana Ong are its President and Treasurer, respectively.
On April 20, 1992, respondent Philippine Commercial International Bank (now Equitable-Philippine Commercial International Bank or E-PCIB) filed a case for collection of a sum of money[1] against petitioners-spouses. Respondent bank sought to hold petitioners-spouses liable as sureties on the three (3) promissory notes they issued to secure some of BMC's loans, totalling five million pesos (P5,000,000.00).
The complaint alleged that in 1991, BMC needed additional capital for its business and applied for various loans, amounting to a total of five million pesos, with the respondent bank. Petitioners-spouses acted as sureties for these loans and issued three (3) promissory notes for the purpose. Under the terms of the notes, it was stipulated that respondent bank may consider debtor BMC in default and demand payment of the remaining balance of the loan upon the levy, attachment or garnishment of any of its properties, or upon BMC's insolvency, or if it is declared to be in a state of suspension of payments. Respondent bank granted BMC's loan applications.
On November 22, 1991, BMC filed a petition for rehabilitation and suspension of payments with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after its properties were attached by creditors. Respondent bank considered debtor BMC in default of its obligations and sought to collect payment thereof from petitioners-spouses as sureties. In due time, petitioners-spouses filed their Answer.
On October 13, 1992, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)[2] was executed by debtor BMC, the petitioners-spouses as President and Treasurer of BMC, and the consortium of creditor banks of BMC (of which respondent bank is included). The MOA took effect upon its approval by the SEC on November 27, 1992.[3]
Thereafter, petitioners-spouses moved to dismiss[4] the complaint. They argued that as the SEC declared the principal debtor BMC in a state of suspension of payments and, under the MOA, the creditor banks, including respondent bank, agreed to temporarily suspend any pending civil action against the debtor BMC, the benefits of the MOA should be extended to petitioners-spouses who acted as BMC's sureties in their contracts of loan with respondent bank. Petitioners-spouses averred that respondent bank is barred from pursuing its collection case filed against them.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioners-spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's ruling that a creditor can proceed against petitioners-spouses as surety independently of its right to proceed against the principal debtor BMC.
Hence this appeal.
Petitioners-spouses claim that the collection case filed against them by respondent bank should be dismissed for three (3) reasons: First, the MOA provided that during its effectivity, there shall be a suspension of filing or pursuing of collection cases against the BMC and this provision should benefit petitioners as sureties. Second, principal debtor BMC has been placed under suspension of payment of debts by the SEC; petitioners contend that it would prejudice them if the principal debtor BMC would enjoy the suspension of payment of its debts while petitioners, who acted only as sureties for some of BMC's debts, would be compelled to make the payment; petitioners add that compelling them to pay is contrary to Article 2063 of the Civil Code which provides that a compromise between the creditor and principal debtor benefits the guarantor and should not prejudice the latter. Lastly, petitioners rely on Article 2081 of the Civil Code which provides that: "the guarantor may set up against the creditor all the defenses which pertain to the principal debtor and are inherent in the debt; but not those which are purely personal to the debtor." Petitioners aver that if the principal debtor BMC can set up the defense of suspension of payment of debts and filing of collection suits against respondent bank, petitioners as sureties should likewise be allowed to avail of these defenses.
We find no merit in petitioners' contentions.
Reliance of petitioners-spouses on Articles 2063 and 2081 of the Civil Code is misplaced as these provisions refer to contracts of guaranty. They do not apply to suretyship contracts. Petitioners-spouses are not guarantors but sureties of BMC's debts. There is a sea of difference in the rights and liabilities of a guarantor and a surety. A guarantor insures the solvency of the debtor while a surety is an insurer of the debt itself. A contract of guaranty gives rise to a subsidiary obligation on the part of the guarantor. It is only after the creditor has proceeded against the properties of the principal debtor and the debt remains unsatisfied that a guarantor can be held liable to answer for any unpaid amount. This is the principle of excussion. In a suretyship contract, however, the benefit of excussion is not available to the surety as he is principally liable for the payment of the debt. As the surety insures the debt itself, he obligates himself to pay the debt if the principal debtor will not pay, regardless of whether or not the latter is financially capable to fulfill his obligation. Thus, a creditor can go directly against the surety although the principal debtor is solvent and is able to pay or no prior demand is made on the principal debtor. A surety is directly, equally and absolutely bound with the principal debtor for the payment of the debt and is deemed as an original promissor and debtor from the beginning.[5]
Under the suretyship contract entered into by petitioners-spouses with respondent bank, the former obligated themselves to be solidarily bound with the principal debtor BMC for the payment of its debts to respondent bank amounting to five million pesos (P5,000,000.00). Under Article 1216 of the Civil Code,[6] respondent bank as creditor may proceed against petitioners-spouses as sureties despite the execution of the MOA which provided for the suspension of payment and filing of collection suits against BMC. Respondent bank's right to collect payment from the surety exists independently of its right to proceed directly against the principal debtor. In fact, the creditor bank may go against the surety alone without prior demand for payment on the principal debtor.[7]
The provisions of the MOA regarding the suspension of payments by BMC and the non-filing of collection suits by the creditor banks pertain only to the property of the principal debtor BMC. Firstly, in the rehabilitation receivership filed by BMC, only the properties of BMC were mentioned in the petition with the SEC.[8] Secondly, there is nothing in the MOA that involves the liabilities of the sureties whose properties are separate and distinct from that of the debtor BMC. Lastly, it bears to stress that the MOA executed by BMC and signed by the creditor-banks was approved by the SEC whose jurisdiction is limited only to corporations and corporate assets. It has no jurisdiction over the properties of BMC's officers or sureties.
Clearly, the collection suit filed by respondent bank against petitioners-spouses as sureties can prosper. The trial court's denial of petitioners' motion to dismiss was proper.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo at 107-112.
[2] CA Rollo at 34-88.
[3] Id., at 119-129.
[4] Id., at 31-32.
[5] Palmares vs. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 422 (1998).
[6] Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors [the surety or the principal debtor] or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected.
[7] Machetti vs. Hospicio de San Jose and Fidelity & Surety Co., 43 Phil. 297 (1922).
[8] Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 788 (1989).