and CA
FACTS: Defendant Augusto Villarosa, applied for a crop loan with the
PNB; this application was approved in the amount of P32,400. Villarosa
executed a Chattel Mortgage on standing crops to guarantee the crop
loan, Villarosa executed these promissory notes with the amount of
P32,400 and afterwards increased to P63k when the complaint was
filed, because of the interest accrued, that was why due to its non-
payment, PNB filed this complaint.
The complaint sought relief not only against the Villarosa but also
against the three (3) bondsmen, Luzon Surety, Central Surety and
Associated Surety because Luzon Surety had filed the bond in the sum
of P10k; Central Surety in the sum of P20k and Associated Surety the
bond, in the sum of P15k, the obligation of each of the bondsmen being
to guarantee the performance of the obligation.
ISSUE: Is the surety liable for interest accrued (eto nmn ung nasa
outline)
If a surety upon demand fails to pay, he can be held liable for interest,
even if in thus paying, the liability becomes more than that in the
principal obligation. The increased liability is not because of the contract
but because of the default and the necessity of judicial collection. It
should be noted that the interest runs from the time the complaint is
filed, not from the time the debt becomes due and demandable.
FACTS: PDCP entered into a loan agreement with Falcon Minerals, Inc.
amounting to $320k.
Escaño, Ortigas and Silos each sought to seek a settlement with PDCP.
Escaño, entered into a compromise agreement where he agreed to pay
P1M. PDCP then waived1/3 of its claim in favour of Escano.
Ortigas entered into his own compromise agreement with PDCP. Ortigas
agreed to pay PDCP P1.3M.
After having settled with PDCP, Ortigas pursued his claims against
Escaño, Silos and Matti, on the basis of the Undertaking. RTC ordered
Escaño, Silos and Matti to pay Ortigas, jointly and severally, the amount
of P1.3M.
RULING: The Undertaking does not contain any express stipulation that
the petitioners agreed “to bind themselves jointly and severally” in their
obligations to the Ortigas group, or any such terms to that effect. Thus,
the obligation in the Undertaking is presumed to be joint.
Article 2047 calls for the application of the provisions on joint and
solidary obligations to suretyship contracts. Article 1217 of the Civil
Code recognizes the right of reimbursement from a co-debtor infavor of
the one who paid.
FACTS: PAGRICO applied for an increase in its line of credit from P400k
to P800k with PNB. PAGRICO submitted Surety Bond amounting to
P400k issued by R & B Surety.
(b) INDEMNITY: —To indemnify the SURETY for any damage and
expenses of whatever kind, which the CORPORATION may become
liable for as consequence of having executed the Bond, xxx, the same to
be due and demandable, irrespective of whether the case is settled
judicially or extrajudicially and whether the amount has been actually
paid or not.
PAGRICO failed to comply with its Principal Obligation to the PNB. PNB
demanded payment from R & B. The Surety made payments totalling
P70k. R & B demanded from Cochingyan, Jr. for reimbursement and for
a discharge of its liability under the Surety Bond. Petitioners failed to
heed its demands.
ISSUE: Whether the filing of the complaint was premature since the PNB
had not yet filed a suit against R & B for the forfeiture of its Surety Bond.
Hizon, has an obligation to answer jointly and severally with David for all
the obligation contracted or to be contracted by the latter in accordance
with the contract of agency and Hizon agrees to answer for the balance
that should be due to the plaintiff from said agent upon liquidation of the
accounts.
RULING: No, any agreement between the creditor and the principal
debtor which essentially varies the terms of the principal contract,
without the consent of the surety, will release the surety from liability. It
is clear that the increase of liability incident to the extension of the
agency to other places than San Fernando was prejudical to the
appellant, and the change could not be lawfully made without his
consent.
SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY Inc. vs. CUENCA
FACTS: SBTC granted Sta. Inesa credit line in the amount of P8M for its
logging operations. Its President Rodolfo Cuenca, executed an
Indemnity agreement in favor of Security Bank whereby he binds himself
jointly and severally with Sta. Ines.
The requisites of novation are present in this case. The Loan Agreement
extinguished the obligation obtained under the credit accommodation.
This is evident from its explicit provision to “liquidate" the principal and
the interest of the earlier indebtedness, as the following shows:
“1.02. Purpose. The First Loan shall be applied to liquidate the principal
portion of the Borrower’s present total outstanding Indebtedness to the
Lender (the "Indebtedness") while the Second Loan shall be applied to
liquidate the past due interest and penalty portion of the Indebtedness.