ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45122   May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES<br /><br />067 Phil 743

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45122. May 5, 1939.]

    VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES, PANFILO SABELLANO, and ROMAN A. CRUZ, Defendants. ROMAN A. CRUZ, Appellant.

    B. Francisco and Roman Cruz for Appellant.

    Jose J. Roy for Appellee.

    No appearance for other parties.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CONTRACTS OF GUARANTY; INTERVENTION IN CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION OF INTENTION OF CONTRACTING PARTIES. — To determine the capacity in which a person intervenes in a written contract, we do not ascertain the place where his signature is found but the text and precise conditions in which the document is couched. In like manner, where the terms of a contract are clear and lease no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal sense of its stipulations shall be followed; and if the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the contracting parties, the intention shall prevail (article 1281, Civil Code). It is true that the contract is one of guaranty and in this sense the appellant intervened therein as guarantor but the liability which he contracts is solidary in character, hence, he answers directly and personally for the entire obligation (articles 1137, 1138, 1837, Civil Code).

    2. ID.; EXTINCTION OF OBLIGATION. — To extinguish an obligation by another which substitutes it, it is necessary that it be so declared expressly, or that the old and new obligations be incompatible in every respect. (Article 1204, Civil Code.)


    D E C I S I O N


    IMPERIAL, J.:


    This is an appeal taken by the codefendant Roman A. Cruz from the decision rendered in the case by the Court of First Instance of Manila, which sentenced him to pay, jointly and severally with the other defendants Fructuosa. Tabares and Panfilo Sabellano, the plaintiff the sum of P2,511.84, plus 15 per cent of said amount by way of attorney’s fees, with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint, and the costs.

    The action is based upon a written bond, signed and executed by the appellant and the above-named defendants in favor of the plaintiff Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation, the conditions of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "EXHIBIT A

    "P. O. Box 2030 Telephone 4-99-61

    "VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION MANILA, P. I.

    "AMOUNT OF BOND. — The undersigned jointly and severally hereby apply to Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation, hereinafter to be known as the CORPORATION, to be guarantors of a Bond in the sum of five thousand three hundred pesos (P5,3000, in favor of The Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., a duplicate of which bond is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

    "In consideration of this guaranty, the undersigned, jointly and severally agree to pay to the CORPORATION the sum of . . . in advance as premium of . . . and for each period of . . . or fraction thereof until said bond or renewal, or substitution of same be cancelled in full by the person or entity guaranteed thereby, or by competent court.

    "INDEMNITY: To indemnify the CORPORATION of any loss, costs, payments and expenses of whatever class and nature including 15 per cent interest of the amount claimed for fees of counselors and lawyers that may be maintained or employed by the CORPORATION at any time as a result of having guaranteed the above-mentioned bond or renewal or substitution of the same upon request of one or all of the signers.

    "EXPIRATION OF OUR OBLIGATIONS AS CONTRACTED HERE WITH: The said indemnity will be paid to the CORPORATION as soon as it becomes liable for the payment of any amount under the above-mentioned bond, whether the said amount or amounts or parts thereof have been paid or not.

    "INCONTESTABILITY OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE CORPORATION: Whatever payment or disbursement made by the corporation with reference to the above-mentioned bond whether in the belief that the corporation was obliged to make the payment or not or in the understanding that the payment was made in order to prevent greater losses or obligations for which the CORPORATION may be liable by virtue of being responsible under the above-mentioned bond, will NOT be disputed by the undersigned who bound themselves to indemnify the CORPORATION of any and all such payments.

    "WAIVER OF VENUE OF ACTION: It is hereby agreed upon by and between the undersigned that any question which may arise between them by reason of this document and which has to be submitted for decision to courts of justice shall be brought before the court of competent jurisdiction in the City of Manila, waiving for this purpose any other proper venue.

    "CANCELLATION OF BOND BY THE CORPORATION: The CORPORATION may at any time cancel the above-mentioned bond subject to any of responsibility arising previous to the date of cancellation, refunding that proportion of the premium not earned on the date of cancellation.

    "Dated at Manila, this 1st day of February, 1934.

    (Sgd.) ’F. TABARES

    (Name)

    "207 Gastambide St., Sampaloc

    (Address)

    (Sgd.) "PANFILO SABELLANO

    (Name)

    "Rainbow Taxicab Co.

    (Address)

    (Sgd.) "ROMAN A. CRUZ

    (Name)

    "2024 Herran, Paco

    (Address)

    "Signed in the presence of:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ILLEGIBLE

    "Firm names and/or signatures of individuals to be affixed in the presence of witnesses. Corporation must affix their corporate seal."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The parties submitted the case to the court upon the following stipulation of facts: "Both parties agree on the following facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That the plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippine Islands with its central office at Cebu, Cebu, and a branch office in the City of Manila, authorized to engage in fidelity and surety business;

    "2. That the defendants, on February 1, 1934, executed jointly and severally in the City of Manila a bond or undertaking for the sum of five thousand three hundred pesos (P5,300) in favor of the plaintiff in consideration of a promissory note for a similar amount executed by the plaintiff jointly and severally with defendants Fructuosa Tabares and Panfilo Sabellano in favor of Bachrach Motor Company, in the City of Manila, copy of which bond or undertaking is hereto attached as Exhibit A. The promissory note executed by the plaintiff jointly and severally with the defendants Tabares and Sabellano in favor of the Bachrach Motor Co., is also attached as Exhibit B;

    "3. That the plaintiff paid P2,51184 which includes interests, on account of the promissory note Exhibit B executed in favor of Bachrach Motor Company, and the defendants Tabares and Sabellano on account of the said promissory note paid P1,200, so that said promissory note there is a remainder of P1,588.16 excluding interests;

    "4. As the remainder referred to in the preceding paragraph became matured and not yet paid by the plaintiff, the latter was sued by Bachrach Motor Co., and said remainder amounts to P1,596.81 including interests, plus twenty-five (25%) per cent as attorney’s fees;

    "5. That on May 12, 1934, the plaintiff Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation entered into a contract with the defendants Tabares and Sabellano, the original of which is hereto attached as Exhibit C;

    "6. That by virtue of said contract Exhibit C, defendants Tabares and Sabellano proceeded to convert, and did convert, into auto-calesas four of the Austin cars which were pledge as guarantee by said Tabares and Sabellano in favor of Bachrach Motor Co., and that two of said auto-calesas were actually registered and operated in the name and under the certificate of Gasket, Esteva and Bautista, by defendants Tabares and Sabellano beginning June 8, 1934;

    "7. That the defendants Tabares and Sabellano, by virtue of a letter, a signed carbon copy of which is hereto attached as Exhibit D, requested the Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation to pay the expenses incident to the conversion of the four Austin cars into auto-calesas, but the said Corporation, believing itself not bound to pay, did not pay;

    "8. That the defendants Fructuosa Tabares and Panfilo Sabellano, with the exception of two auto-calesas which were operated beginning June 8, 1934, did not operate the remaining four auto-calesas within the period of thirty days stipulated in the agreement Exhibit C;

    "9. That in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to that effect, defendants Tabares and Sabellano never turned over to it the proceeds of the operation of the said two auto-calesas;

    "10. That when Bachrach Motor Co. foreclosed the mortgage of the ten Austin cars, the purchase price of which is the subject matter of promissory note Exhibit B, the defendants Tabares and Sabellano voluntarily turned over the said ten cars to Bachrach Motor Co.;

    "11. That the said ten Austin cars were sold at a public auction in the amount of P170 in favor of the highest bidder, the Bachrach Motor Co., and that the bid was made by an agent of the Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation in behalf of the Bachrach Motor Company;

    "12. That at the trial of this case the parties will confine themselves to proving whether or not the certificate of public convenience owned by Gasket, Esteva and Bautista was ever purchased by defendants Fructuosa Tabares and Panfilo Sabellano, and the reason why the defendants Tabares and Sabellano were not able to convert into auto-calesas the remaining two Austin cars."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The foregoing stipulation was subsequently amended by the addition of the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Both parties agree to amend paragraph 11 of the agreement of facts in the sense that instead of ten Austin cars, it be made to appear therein eight (8) Austin cars; and that two of the said Austin cars, excluding the 8 referred to in paragraph 11, are now in the possession of M. Neshino, a Japanese carpenter, who claims said cars for services rendered in the construction of the bodies of the four auto-calesas converted."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under the stipulation of facts the court found that the plaintiff had already paid to Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., on account of the note which it signed with the defendants Tabares and Sabellano, the sum of P2,511.84, including stipulated interest, and that the unpaid balance amounts to P1,596.81, including interest, plus 25 per cent of this amount by way of attorney’s fees, to recover which Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., brought suit against the plaintiff, which is still pending decision; that Bachrach Motor Co., Inc, foreclosed the mortgage on the automobiles, having purchased the same at public auction as the highest bidder for the sum of P170, and that under Act No. 4122, Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., can no longer recover the unpaid balance of the note from the plaintiff, nor is the latter bound to pay the same. Upon this ground, it ordered the defendants, including the appellant, to pay only the amount which the plaintiff had advanced, namely, the sum of P2,611.84.

    The appellant contends that the court erred: (1) in not holding that he only guaranteed the obligation contracted by his co-defendants Fructuosa Tabares and Panfilo Sabellano by virtue of the note which they executed in favor

    The appellant contends in his second assigned error that the contract entered into between the plaintiff, on the one hand, and Tabares and Sabellano, on the other, on May 12, 1934, novated the contract of guaranty which he signed. The first of these contracts had for its sole purpose to lift the attachment which the plaintiff levied on the ten automobiles operated by Tabares and Sabellano and to make it easy for the latter to pay what the plaintiff had advanced to Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., on account of the note, it having been further stipulated that if the then defendants punctually paid the installments which they undertook to pay, the plaintiff would ask for the dismissal of this suit, otherwise the proceedings would go forward. Both by its purpose and by its terms, that contract did not operate as a novation of the contract of guaranty. Neither do the terms thereof contain any stipulation substantially contrary to or amendatory of the clauses of the contract of guaranty. To extinguish an obligation by another which substitutes it, it is necessary that it be so declared expressly, or that the old and new obligations be incompatible in every respect. (Article 1204, Civil Code.)

    The appellant alleges that the contract entered into on May 14, 1934, Exhibit C, substantially modified the note, Exhibit B, because under it the four Austin cars were conveyed to the plaintiff and the remaining six to Tabares and Sabellano. It will be noted, however, that this agreement in no wise alters substantially the ,aforesaid note because in the latter there is no contrary stipulation with respect to said automobiles. According to the note, the ten automobiles already belonged to Tabares and Sabellano by virtue of a deed of sale, land the note was executed ostensibly to answer for the unpaid balance of the price of said automobiles. There is nothing in the note which prohibits Tabares and Sabellano, as owners of the automobiles, to dispose there of in the manner they did in the contract Exhibit C.

    The last assigned errors are merely a corollary of the preceding ones and, therefore, need not be discussed further.

    In view of the foregoing considerations, and the errors attributed to the judgment not having been committed, the same is affirmed, with the costs of this instance to the appellant. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45122   May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES<br /><br />067 Phil 743


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED