Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958
THE PHILIPPINE GUARANTY CO., INC., petitioner,
vs.
LAURA DINIO, PEDRO MANALASTAS, in his capacity as Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Raymundo Manalastas, and Valentina Pelayo, respondents.
Ramirez and Ortigas and Ignacio B. Alcuaz for petitioner.
Pacifico L. Santiago for respondent Alejandra Pelayo.
Vitaliano T. Estacio for respondent Pedro Manalastas, etc.
LABRADOR, J.:
Appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the Court of Appeals, reversing thatof the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in favor of the petitioner andagainst Laura Dinio and Pedro Manalastas for the payment by the latter of the sum of P11,000 in favor of the plaintiff, with interests and costs. Thefacts as found by the Court of Appeals are stated by that court as follows:
It appears that in Civil Case No. C-194 of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, Laura Dinio was sued by one Consolacion Nolasco. Said Court ofFirst Instance issued a writ of preliminary attachment which was levied on the property of the defendant in that case, consisting of trucks, trailers,and wreckers, all of various tonnage, to answer for the judgment that mightbe rendered against her.
On December 21, 1946, defendant Laura Dinio and the Philippine GuarantyCo. Inc. filed a bond of P11,000 with the Court of First Instance of IlocosSur for the lifting of the attachment; said bond was to secure payment to theplaintiff of any judgment she may recover against the defendant. On the same day, December 21, 1946, said Laura Dinio and Raymundo Manalastas executed acounter-guranty with mortgage (Exh. C) in favor of the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. (the plaintiff-appellant in the present case) in order to indemnifythe latter for any damage, prejudice, losses, costs, payments, advances, andany other expenses of whatever kind and nature, including attorney's feeswhich the said Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. might incur as a consequenceof any execution that might be levied on said bond. The counter guarranty with mortgage above mentioned was registered and with the respective officesof the register of deeds of Ilocos Sur and Pampanga, inasmuch as the real property of Raymundo Manalastas, subject matter of the mortgage described inExhibit C, is situated in Pampanga.
On June 30, 1948, judgment was rendered in said Civil Case No. C-194, ordering defendant Laura Dinio to return to plaintiff Consolacion Nolascothe sum of P10,000. Laura Dinio failed to satisfy the judgment so the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. with the sheriff of the City of Manila to satisfy the judgment. Thereafter, petitioner herein demanded the payment ofthe sum paid by it to satisfy the judgment in Civil Case No. C-194 and as thepayment demanded was not forthcoming, the present action was brought againstrespondents Laurs Dinio and Pedro Manalastas in executionm of the counterbondthat they had filed in favor of the petitioner. The Court of First Instanceof Nueva Ecija found for the plaintiff-petitioner but on appeal to the Courtof Apeals the latter reversed the judgment holding that the counterbond executed by Raymundo Manalastas was executed without any valuable consideration. It further held that as the property covered by the counterbond was conjugal property of Raymundo Manalastas and Valentina Pelayoand as the encumbrance created by Manalastas was in fraud of his spouse,Aricle 1413 of the Civil Code should be made applicable and in accordance therewith, as Raymundo Manalastas is already dead, an inventory of the conjugal property be made and the obligation created by the counterbond be charged against his share in the counterbond being null and void insofar as the same not be covered by the share of Manalastas in the conjugal property.The court, therefore, in a final order rendered after a motion to reconsider the original decision had been presented, ordered that the case be returnedto the Court of First instance for the reception of additional evidence andfor such other important proceedings as may be necessary and proper to determine whether or not the rights and interest of Valentina Pelayo, as surviving spouse of Raymundo Manalastas, was prejudiced by the incumbrancein question. Petition for certiorari was filed in this Court against saiddecision and the same was given due course.
The important question presented to Us for decision is whether or not the counterbond, Exhibit "C," which Ramundo Manalastas, jointly with Laura Dinio,executed in favor of the petitioner, The Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc., isnull and void for lack of valuable consideration in favor of Raymundo Manalastas.
It is evident that the counterbond executed jointly by Raymundoa Manalastaswith Laura Dinio, Exhibit "C," was executed by them in order to secure the bond by the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. in favor of Laura Dinio. The factthat the bond was for the benefit of Laura Dinio, and not for Raymundo Manalastas, jointly or singly, does not mean the counterbond was executed byManalastas without any valuable consideration. The consideration in such caseis that which suuports the principal debtor's obligation.
The claim of the appellants that there was no consideration for their guarranty can not be sustained. The consideration which supports the obligation as to the principal debtor is a sufficient consideration to support the obligation of the sureties. It is not necessary to prove anyconsideration as between them and the creditor." (Pyle vs. Johnson, et al.,9 Phil. 249, 251.).
The proof shows that the money claimed in this action has never been paid and is still owing to the plaintiff; and the only defense worth nothing inthis decision is the assetion on the part of Enrique Echaus that he receivednothing for affixing the signature as guarantor to the contract which is thesubject of suit and that in effect the contract was lacking in considerationas to him.
The point is not well taken. A guarantor or surety is bound by the same consideration that makes the contract effective between the principal therto.(Pyle vs. Johnson, 9 Phil. 249.) . . . .
See also Enriquez de la Cavada vs. Diaz, 37 Phil. 982; Acuna vs. Veloso, 50 Phil.241.
The execution of the bond in the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. petitionerherein, in favor of Laura Dinio, is, therefore, the consideration for theexecution of the counterbond by Raymundo Manalastas. It is not necessary thatsuch consideration, the execution of the bond by the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. redound directly to the benefit of Raymundo Manalastas; it isenough that it was favorable to Laura Dinio.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and set aside and that of the Court of First Instance, affirmed, with costs against the respondents.
Bengzon, Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
