Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > March 1910 Decisions > G.R. No. 5470 March 22, 1910 - LUIS SAENZ DE VIZMANOS ONG-QUICO v. YAP CHUAN ET AL.

016 Phil 76:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 5470. March 22, 1910. ]

LUIS SAENZ DE VIZMANOS ONG-QUICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YAP CHUAN ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Ortigas & Fisher, for Plaintiff.

Chicote & Miranda, for Defendants.

SYLLABUS


1. BOND OF DEBTORE TO PROTECT HIS SURETY. — The bond of a debtore to protect his surety is not a subbond nor a second bond with respect to the original creditor; it is not the same as the first bond in favor of the debtor with respect to such creditor. It is nothing but a substitute of the obligation of the debtor with respect to his surety, and is necessarily by the legal provisions which regulate the right of action of the surety against the party for whom he gave the bond, that it, an action of subrogation which lies with the surety to compel the debtor to comply with the obligation to reimburse. This action arising out of the right of subrogation is the remedy for securing reimbursement of the amount that another has paid, and can not exceed, except the is an express agreement to the contrary, the amount actually paid by the surety in place of the debtore. The following terms of an obligation can not be considered as an express agreement to be contrary: . . bind themselves as such conjointly to reimburse or pay whatever amounts the latter (the surety) may have to pay or shall have paid by reason of the judicial bond," inasmuch this matter of expressing the intention of the obligated parties does not constitute a true disjunctive proposition, but is merely explanatory of the obligation as if contracted by the debtor himself, the only natural and logical interpretation.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


Engracio Palanca, while judicial administrator of the estate of Margarita Jose, gave bond, by order of the court before which the proceedings thereon were had, to guarantee his administration, which bond was executed by Engracio Palanca himself, Luis S. de Vizmanos Ong-Quico, Alejandra Palanca, and Juan Fernandez Lim Quin Chuang, jointly and severally, in favor of the Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands, for the sum of P60,000, Philippine currency.

On the same date the said Engracio Palanca and five others executed in favor of Luis S. de Vizmanos the following bond: Yap Chuangco, for P20,000: Yap Chutco, for P5,000: Palanca Yap Poco, for P5,000; Palanca Tanguinlay, for P5,000; and Lim Pomgco, for P5,000. All of them signed the bond except the first named, Yap Chuangco, who did not personally execute the bond; this was done for him by his attorney, Yap Chengtua.

In the said instrument the following appears:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . and, it being possible that the case occur that Mr. Vizmanos shall have to pay the said bond or a part thereof, as such a surety, whose responsibility or solvency in such capacity has been accepted by the court up to the amount of forty thousand pesos, Philippine currency, for the purpose of guaranteeing to the same the reimbursement of the sum or sums which by reason of the said bond he might have to pay, the executors of the instrument have agreed that Messrs. Yap Chuangco, Yap Chutco, Carlos Palanca Tanguinlay, Serafin Palanca Yap Poco, and Lim Biampung, known as Lim Pongco, shall be the sureties of Don Engracio Palanca in favor of Mr. Luis S. Vizmanos Ong Quico, binding themselves jointly as such to reimburse or to pay to the said Mr. Vizmanos, his heirs and successors in interest, whatever sums the said Vizmanos may have to pay or shall have paid by reason of the judicial bond herein mentioned, subscribed by him in favor of Mr. Palanca, up to the amount of forty thousand peso, Philippine currency, in the proportion of not exceeding P20,000 by Yap Chuangco and P5,000 by each of the other four herein above mentioned.

On March 9, 1908, the court which tried the case concerning the state ordered Luis Saenz de Vismanos Ong Quico, as surety in solidum of the ex-administrator Engracio Palanca, to pay to the estate the sum of P41,690.15, Philippine currency, also the interest on the said sum at the rate of 8 percent per annum, counting from December 27, 1905, with other set out in the sentence. This judgment became final.

On March 31, 1908, Vizmanos Ong-Quico paid to the administrator of the estate eight thousand pesos (P8,000), Philippine currency, by the conveyance of property belonging to him, he still owing P40,975.92, with interest in the said amount at 8 percent per annum from the 9th day of March, 1908, the date of the judgment.

On April 2, 1908, he instituted suit against the five sureties above named who, with Engracio Palanca, executed bond before mentioned in his favor, praying the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to sentence them to pay him: Yap Chuangco, P20,000, and the other four sureties, Yap Chutco, Carlos Palanca Tanguinlay, Serafin Palanca Yap Poco, and Lim Pongco, each P5,000, that is these four together P20,000 more, and jointly the costs of the action.

The court, in its judgment, acquitted Yap Chuangco from the claim of the P20,000, assessing against the plaintiff the part of the costs pertaining to this defendant, and ordered each one of the for remaining defendants, Yap Chutco, Carlos Palanca Tanguinlay, Serafin Palanca Yap Poco, and Lim Biang Pon (alias Lim Pongco), to pay to the plaintiff, Luis Saenz de Vizmanos, the sum of P2,000 with legal interest at 6 percent per annum on the said respective sums from March 31, 1908, the date on which the plaintiff paid to the present administrator of the estate the said sum of P8,000, until its complete payment. The said four defendants had also to pay jointly, that is, in equal shares, the costs pertaining to them.

Both parties appealed from this sentence, each one forwarding to this court his respective bill of exceptions, together with all the evidence taken at the trial, besides the stenographic notes which were also forwarded by special order of the trial court.

The appeal having been heard before this court, it appears that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The defendants appealed on account of their having been ordered to pay, each of them, P2,000, instead of only P1,000, which according to the terms of the contract, each one of them was bound to pay the plaintiff. (Only error alleged.)

The plaintiff appealed because the court refused to render judgment against the defendants for the maximum sum for which one had bound himself in the contract, which he calls a counterbond or subbond, that is, each one of the four to pay P5,000. (Only error alleged.)

The share of P20,000 which the plaintiff claimed from Yap Chuangco is not included in the former’s appeal, from the payment of which amount the latter is relieved in the judgment, for he expressly states in his brief that he conforms to this part of the judgment and that "his appeal solely relates to the other defendants." (Brief, 4.)

With respect to the other for defendants, the plaintiff and appellant claims that, notwithstanding his having paid only P8,000 of his bound, the defendants ought to reimburse him at the rate of P5,000 each, that is, all together to the amount of P20,000. As above stated, the lower court only sentenced them to reimburse their proportional share of the P8,000 paid, to wit, P2,000 each, P8,000 all together. Thus they would be paying even the proportional share corresponding to Yap Chuangco, which is P4,000, whereas the plaintiff appellant agrees that the share of the bond concerning Yap Chuangco should b void by reason of its having been executed by an attorney in fact of the latter who did not possess sufficient power for this purpose.

Hence the only error alleged by the defendants in their brief, inasmuch as, having deducted the P4,000 which Yap Chuanco would have to pay, the other four defendants must pay only P4,000, that is, P1,000 each.

"We can not but agree with this claim of the attorneys for the defendants — say those of the plaintiff — if this court, disregarding the reasons contained in our brief, should declare that the plaintiff is only entitled to recover the money that he really and actually has expended, to wit, P8,000, then it appears unquestionable that the defendants and appellants are only compelled to pay P1,000 each, as their attorneys state in their brief." (Brief, 2.)

With regard to the sole error alleged by the attorneys for the plaintiff, it must first be considered that the bond which the four defendants in turn executed in favor of the plaintiff bondsman is not a subbond; it is not of the same nature as that given by the latter in favor of Engracio Palanca in the probate proceedings in connection with the will of Margarita Jose. Although one bond is subordinate to another, not for this reason are they of the same nature. That of Vizmanos for Engracio Palanca in favor of the estate is judicial and was approved by the probate judge; that of the defendants for Engracio Palanca in favor of Vizmanos was extrajudicial and the probate judge had nothing to do with it. The new administrator of the estate had a right of action, and he exercised it against Vizmanos to enforce the payment of the bond given by the latter, but he has none nor can he exercise any whatsoever against the four who gave bound for Engracio Palanca in favor of Vizmanos. The only relation that exists between the one bond and the other is merely that of antecedent and consequent, in so far as that of Vizmanos in favor of the estate was the cause of debt of that of the defendants in favor of Vizmanos. The first one was strictly judicial, the second merely contractual between the parties.

When a surety pays for the party under bound, he has a right of action against such party for the recovery of the amount paid by him.

"A surety who pays for a debtor shall be indemnified by the latter." (Art. 1838, Civil Code.)

The surety Vizmanos who paid for the debtor Palanca must be indemnified by Palanca. And as it was evident, when Vizmanos became surety of Palanca, that the latter could not pay him, Palanca obligated himself by the four defendants, or, better said, the four defendants assumed the obligation that rested upon Palanca to indemnify Vizmanos for what the latter might pay for Palanca. This is in fact the obligation that is now exercised. The action of the surety against the party under bond or the debtor to require the obligation of indemnity, has no other name nor other nature in law than that of a subrogation; it is an unquestionable doctrine. The action of subrogation is regulated in article 1839 of the Civil Code:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"By virtue of such payment the surety is subrogated in all the rights which the creditor had against the debtor."cralaw virtua1aw library

"But be it well understood — says a commentator — that this subrogation can not be interpreted in such absolute terms as to include more than the surety has paid, for, though it is true that he puts himself in the place of the creditor and should have the same rights as the latter in consequence of the subrogation, it is no less certain that there would be an unjust enrichment to the prejudice of the debtor, if the surety who pays for him were permitted to claim more than what he paid. Moreover, the benefit of subrogation is the means of utilizing the right of reimbursement, and he could not collect as such as the excess from the rights and actions of the creditor over and above the advance made by him." (12 Manresa, Civil Code, 304.)

The contract law says no more than this:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Being that the case may occur — say those obligated — that the said Vizmanos may have to pay the said bond or a part thereof . . . for the purpose of guaranteeing the reimbursement of the sum or sums which by reason of the bond he may have to pay, the executors have agreed and stipulated that . . . they shall be the sureties of Don Engracio Palanca in favor of St. Luis S. Vizmanos, binding themselves as such conjointly to reimburse or to pay . . . whatever amounts the latter might have to pay or shall have paid by reason of the judicial bond aforementioned. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Being as it is an action of subrogation, it is not exercisable by in the case of payment. The surety is subrogated by the payment, says the law, in all the rights that the creditor had against the debtor. Being as it is an action of indemnity it is not conceived how, rationally, the damage not yet caused can be anticipated. When the purse of the surety has suffered no detriment, to sue the debtor in order that he provide funds for the surety in expectancy of the action of the creditor, is not to ask an indemnity, but to demand a guaranty to recover the loss when it may occur, and this guaranty is that already obtained by the surety Vizmanos from Engracio Palanca on the latter’s placing beforehand four parties in his stead in order that they may at proper time insure him of the restitution, the reimbursement of what he shall have paid. To ask an indemnity of twenty, when the loss to be indemnified is but eight, can in no wise be authorized either by law or by reason.

The Civil Code specifies five cases as exceptions where in the surety, even before paying, may proceed against the principal debtor, but all "in all these cases the action of the surety tends to obtain his release from the security or a guaranty to defend him against any proceedings of the creditor and from the danger of insolvency of the debtor." (Art. 1843, Civil Code.) The security or bond given by the for defendants in favor of the plaintiff Vizmanos had no other purpose than, in case he should make payment to the estate of Margarita Jose, to defend himself against the proceedings of the administrator or the estate and from the danger of insolvency of the debtor Palanca.

Although, in principle, by virtue of the contract in question, the for defendants are obligated to the plaintiff in the sum of P20,000, that is, at the rate of P5,000 each, the action ad cautelam is, precisely, covered by such a contract, and the action of subrogation, the only one exercisable, is only available in the quality of a restitution or reimbursement of the payment effected. In the present case the plaintiff, by virtue of the contract ad cautelam, is entitled to an action against the four defendants for recovery from each of them up to the maximum amount of P5,000, but he can not by such action, as surety for the principal debtor, collect more than the sum which he himself was actually compelled to pay.

In virtue of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed in so far as it sentences each one of the four defendants, Yap Chutco, Carlos Palanca Tanguinlay, Serafin Palanca Yap Poco, and Lim Biang Pong (alias Lim Pongco), to pay the plaintiff, Luis Saenz de Vismanos, the sum of P2,000. The amount to be paid is hereby fixed at P1,000, to the payment of which, in favor of the a fore said plaintiff, each of the four defendants mentioned were sentenced, "with legal interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on the said respective sums, from March 31, 1908, the date on which the plaintiff paid to the present administrator of the said estate the said sum of P8,000, until its complete payment. The said four defendants shall pay the costs in equal shares." The costs of this instance shall be assessed against the plaintiff and appellant Vizmanos. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Moreland, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1910 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5447 March 1, 1910 - PAUL REISS v. JOSE M. MEMIJE

    015 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 5606 March 2, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON INSIERTO

    015 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 5629 March 2, 1910 - LUIS FRUCTO v. MAXIMIANO FUENTES

    015 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 5676 March 2, 1910 - LIM TIU v. RUIZ Y REMETERIA

    015 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 4788 March 3, 1910 - JUANA URBANO v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

    015 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 4811 March 3, 1910 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. SANTOS CAPADOCIA

    015 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 5325 March 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AMADEO CORRAL

    015 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 4508 March 4, 1910 - MARCIANA CONLU v. PABLO ARANETA

    015 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 5597 March 5, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. D. B. JEFFREY

    015 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 5222 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO ALUMISIN

    015 Phil 396

  • G.R. Nos. 5426 & 5427 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. LINO SUMANGIL

    015 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 5502 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ROMULO

    015 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-5569 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO BIRAY

    017 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 4991 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO PIMENTEL

    015 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 5396 March 12, 1910 - CANUTO REYES v. JACINTO LIMJAP

    015 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 5491 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PRIMITIVO GAMILLA

    015 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 5611 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN VALERO

    015 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 5560 March 14, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE QUILLO

    015 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 5001 March 15, 1910 - ESTEBAN RANJO v. GREGORIO SALMON

    015 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 5054 March 15, 1910 - MARIA FALCON v. NARCISO L. MANZANO

    015 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 5112 March 15, 1910 - FRANCISCA BRETA v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    015 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 5255 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO MONTELI

    015 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 5304 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO PALAOBSANON

    015 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 5596 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO BAROT

    015 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 5254 March 17, 1910 - ANICETO GOMEZ MEDEL v. PEDRO AVECILLA

    015 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-5535 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO PELLEJERA

    017 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-5642 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. VIENTE ARCEO

    017 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 5381 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO ANCHETA

    015 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 5272 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AH CHONG

    015 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 5321 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PAU TE CHIN

    015 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 5509 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX LOPEZ

    015 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 5583 March 19, 1910 - G. URRUTIA & CO. v. PASIG STEAMER

    015 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-5620 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. Ilongots PALIDAT ET AL.

    017 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4179 March 21, 1910 - RAFAEL AZADA Y LARA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ Y GARCIA

    015 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 4612 March 21, 1910 - PABLO RALLONZA v. TEODORO EVANGELISTA

    015 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 4654 March 21, 1910 - LEON CABALLERO v. ESTEFANIA ABELLANA

    015 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 5183 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TOK

    015 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 5480 March 21, 1910 - RICARDO LOPEZ v. ADOLFO OLBES

    015 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5487 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PICO

    015 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 5524 March 21, 1910 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA

    015 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 5525 March 21, 1910 - EUGENIO PASCUAL LORENZO v. H. B. MCCOY

    015 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 5673 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TAN SAM TAO

    015 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 4713 March 22, 1910 - CHATAMAL TEERTHDASS v. POHOOMUL BROTHERS

    015 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4901 March 22, 1910 - TEODORO OLGADO v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LIPA

    015 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. 4907 March 22, 1910 - CARLOS GSELL v. PEDRO KOCH

    016 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4977 March 22, 1910 - DAVID TAYLOR v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD, ET AL.

    016 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 5006 March 22, 1910 - ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO v. LUIS BORJA ET AL.

    016 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 5022 March 22, 1910 - MURPHY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    016 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5149 March 22, 1910 - GREGORIO MACAPINLAC v. MARIANO ALIMURONG

    016 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 5291 March 22, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FACUNDO BARDELAS

    016 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 5449 March 22, 1910 - MARIANO GONZALES ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO ROJAS

    016 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 5464 March 22, 1910 - MARIA JOSE Y NARVAEZ ET A. v. PHILS. SQUADRON

    016 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 5470 March 22, 1910 - LUIS SAENZ DE VIZMANOS ONG-QUICO v. YAP CHUAN ET AL.

    016 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 5599 March 22, 1910 - MAURICE F. LOEWENSTEIN v. H. C. PAGE

    016 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. 5603 March 22, 1910 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    016 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 4718 March 19, 1910 - SY JOC LIENG v. PETRONILA ENCARNACION

    016 Phil 137