Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > May 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10793 May 24, 1957 - MANILA TERMINAL CO.INC. v. JESUS O. HIPONIA, ET AL

101 Phil 569:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-10793. May 24, 1957.]

MANILA TERMINAL CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JESUS O. HIPONIA, ET AL., Defendants. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Cornelio R. Magsarili for Appellant.

Horacio San Luis for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. SURETYSHIP; LIABILITY OF SURETY PROSPECTIVE; SURETY NOT LIABLE FOR DEFAULTS OCCURRING BEFORE BOND IS EXECUTED. — Considering that the arrastre charges which are now demanded from appellant had already accrued when the company executed its bond on May 29, 1947 in favor of appellee, appellant cannot be held liable therefor, because its bond cannot be given a retroactive effect unless an intent to be so liable clearly appears from the evidence. Here such intention does not appear clear. The wording of the bond is ambiguous or equivocal and as such it cannot be considered as an exception to the rule. And considering that a contract of suretyship is strictly construed against the creditor when the intention of the parties is not clearly expressed, appellant can not be held liable for the payment of the amount claimed in the complaint.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila sentencing Jesus O. Hiponia and the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P2,778.90, plus legal interest thereon from December 21, 1949, and dismissing the cross-complaint of said company with respect to its co- defendant, Juan C. Capalad.

The Manila Terminal Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, was a contractor and operator of the government arrastre service in the port of Manila, while Jesus O. Hiponia was a customs broker engaged in brokerage business in the City of Manila. To expedite the delivery of goods, wares and merchandise to Hiponia in connection with his customs brokerage business, plaintiff required that he posts arrastre bonds to secure the payment of arrastre charges that may be due against him. In compliance with this requirement, Hiponia posted on March 6, 1947 an arrastre bond executed by the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. in the amount of P5,000, to expire on December 31, 1947 to guarantee the payment of "all arrastre and other charges that may have accrued or may be due on all and every goods, wares and merchandise which may be imported into, or exported from, the Philippine Islands" by Hiponia "upon export and import permits issued to him."cralaw virtua1aw library

On April 8, 1947, plaintiff again required Hiponia to post a second arrastre bond and the same company again issued a second arrastre bond in the amount of P10,000 in favor of plaintiff under the same terms and conditions set forth in the first arrastre bond. As plaintiff required Hiponia to post another arrastre bond, on May 29, 1947, the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. posted the third bond in the amount of P5,000 under the same terms and conditions set forth in the first and second bonds.

It appears that Hiponia failed to pay plaintiff the arrastre and other charges in the amount of P11,315.58 over a period of from March 6, 1947 to December 31, 1947 and so it required Hiponia and the sureties to pay the same. Out of said claim, the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. paid the sum of P8,486.68 and Hiponia the sum of P50, leaving a balance of P2,778.90. It is this balance which plaintiff now seeks to collect from the Far Eastern Surety Insurance Co., Inc. primarily and, in the alternative, from the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc., jointly and severally, with Jesus O. Hiponia.

Defendant Hiponia, having failed to answer, was declared in default. The two sureties filed their respective answers after their motions to dismiss were denied by the court. On August 14, 1950, the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. filed an amended answer with a view to including a cross-complaint against Jesus O. Hiponia and Juan C. Capalad based on the fact that they executed in its favor an indemnity agreement to indemnify it against any damage which it may sustain for having issued an arrastre bond in behalf of Jesus O. Hiponia. Hiponia did not answer this cross-complaint. On his part, Capalad answered alleging that he only acted as a witness in said indemnity agreement and so he cannot be held liable. After trial, the court rendered judgment as stated in the early part of this decision.

After this case was taken to the Court of Appeals, the latter certified the case to us on the ground that the question raised on appeal is purely one of law.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether appellant may be held answerable for the balance of P2,778.90 as part of the arrastre charges which Hiponia had failed to pay to plaintiff under its bond executed on May 29, 1947, it appearing that the same can be fully covered by the two bonds previously executed by the other surety in favor of the plaintiff.

It appears that three arrastre bonds were executed in favor of appellee to guarantee all arrastre charges that may be due from Hiponia and which he may fail to pay to appellee: one for P5,000 dated March 6, 1947 executed by the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc.; another for P10,000 executed by the same company on April 8, 1947, and a third for P5,000 executed on May 29, 1947 by the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. It also appears that the total arrastre charges that accrued in favor of appellee amounts to P11,315.58 and that, while the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. paid its proportionate share of P8,486.68 under its bonds, the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. refused to pay the balance of P2,778.90.

The refusal of this company to pay this balance is predicated on two grounds: (1) when it executed its bond on May 29, 1947, it did so with the understanding that it will only be liable thereon after the first two bonds previously executed would be found insufficient to pay the charges that may be due from Jesus O. Hiponia, and (2) the balance of P2,778.90 due from Hiponia had already accrued when it executed said bond and, therefore, the same is not covered by it since it cannot be given a retroactive effect.

The first ground does not find support in the evidence. There is nothing in the bond executed by appellant from which it may be inferred that it undertook to answer for the arrastre charges that may be due from Hiponia only in case the two bonds previously executed would be insufficient to cover them. On the contrary, that undertaking appears to be distinct and separate from the undertaking of the other surety and it should therefore be considered exclusively according to its terms and conditions. In this respect, we find correct the following findings of the court a quo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . A perusal of Exhibit ‘C’ reveals the fact that the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. bound itself to pay, jointly and severally with Jesus O. Hiponia, all arrastre and other charges that may have arisen or which may fall due on all and every goods, ware and merchandise which may be imported into, or exported from the Philippines by Jesus O. Hiponia up to December 31, 1947. It does not mention anything about the arrastre bonds, Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ executed by plaintiff Philippine Guaranty Company, Inc. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that the liability assumed by the surety under Exhibit ‘C’ is a subsidiary to the liability assumed by the surety in Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’. The relationship between the parties is as follows: Hiponia and the Philippine Guaranty Company, Inc. are solidarily liable to the plaintiff for arrastre charges up to December 31, 1947 in the sum of P15,000. Hiponia and the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Company, Inc., in a separate and independent obligation, are solidarily liable in favor of the plaintiff for arrastre charges up to December 31, 1947 in the sum of P5,000. But the surety in Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the liability of the surety in Exhibit ‘C’. Likewise, the surety in Exhibit ‘C’ has nothing to do with the liability of the surety in Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B,:"

The second ground requires an examination of the bond executed by appellant, the pertinent portion of which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The condition of this bond is such, that if the above-bounden principal shall well and truly pay, or cause to be paid unto the above-named MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY, INC., all the arrastre and other charges that may have arisen or due on all and every goods, wares and merchandises which may be imported into or exported from the Philippine Islands by the above-bounden principal upon export or import permits issued to him, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect."cralaw virtua1aw library

Before we proceed, a little digression is necessary on the nature and extent of the liability of a surety. In El Vencedor v. Canlas, 44 Phil., 699, this Court said: "The rule is well known that a bond or contract of suretyship is strictly construed and cannot be extended beyond its specified limits (Civil Code, Article 1827). It is not retrospective and no liability attaches for defaults occurring before it is entered into unless an intent to be so liable is indicated." In a later case, this Court also said: "Bonds or other contracts of suretyship are ordinarily not to be construed as retrospective, but that rule must yield to the intention of the contradicting parties as revealed by the evidence, and does not interfere with the application of the ordinary tests and canons followed in the interpretation of other contracts" (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Foerster, 49 Phil., 843).

Considering that the arrastre charges which are now demanded from appellant had already accrued when the company executed its bond on May 29, 1947 in favor of appellee, it follows that, in line with the principle above enunciated, appellant cannot be held liable therefor, because its bond cannot be given a retroactive effect unless an intent to be so liable clearly appears from the evidence. Here such intention does not appear clear. While the bond states that it shall answer for "all the arrastre and other charges that may have arisen or due" from the principal debtor, such sentence is however qualified by the following words "on all and every goods, wares and merchandise which may be imported into, or exported from, the Philippine Islands", which give the connotation that the undertaking only covers charges that may accrue in the future. (Italics supplied) The least that we can say is that the wording of the bond is ambiguous or equivocal and as such it cannot be considered as an exception to the rule. And considering that a contract of suretyship is strictly construed against the creditor when the intention of the parties is not clearly expressed, we have no other alternative than to hold that appellant is not liable for the payment of the amount claimed in the complaint. In this respect, we find erroneous the decision of the lower court.

The decision appealed from should therefore be modified in the sense that the action should be dismissed in so far as appellant is concerned. The rest of the decision as regards defendant Jesus O. Hiponia should stand. No pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, 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






May-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9439 May 17, 1957 - CANDIDO BUENA v. HON. JUDGE JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL

    101 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. L-10760 May 17, 1957 - LY GIOK HA, ET AL v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL

    101 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-9080 May 18, 1957 - TAN SONG SIN v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-9350 May 20, 1957 - CEBU PORT LABOR UNION v. STATES MARINE CORP. ET AL

    101 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-9736 May 20, 1957 - PANGASINAN TRANS., CO., ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. L-10759 May 20, 1957 - LEONARDO MONTES v. CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-9353 May 21, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. BATU CONSTRUCTION & CO.

    101 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. L-8886 May 22, 1957 - A. SORIANO Y CIA. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-9626 May 22, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO ALVAREZ

    101 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. L-9911 May 22, 1957 - PRISCILA DURANG-PARANG JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-9997 May 22, 1957 - RICARDO CUA v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS

    101 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-8721 May 23, 1957 - TRANQUILINO CACHERO v. MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC.

    101 Phil 523

  • G.R. Nos. L-8848-58 May 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN CANSON, ET AL

    101 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. L-8987 May 23, 1957 - JAPANESE WAR NOTES CLAIMANTS ASSO. OF THE PHIL. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COM.

    101 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. L-9448 May 23, 1957 - ASELIDES MARCELO, ET AL v. PHIL., NAT’L. RED CROSS, ET AL

    101 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. L-9656 May 23, 1957 - CHANG KIM TIMOTEO VERGEL DE DIOS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. L-9912 May 23, 1957 - ROMULO CUYO v. CITY MAYOR, BAGUIO CITY, ET AL

    101 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-9558 May 24, 1957 - LEONCIO MONGE, ET AL v. LINO ANGELES, ET AL

    101 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-9641 May 24, 1957 - WACK WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

    101 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-10793 May 24, 1957 - MANILA TERMINAL CO.INC. v. JESUS O. HIPONIA, ET AL

    101 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-9789 May 25, 1957 - FERNANDO E. RICAFORT v. HON. WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-9625 May 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCA CELIS

    101 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-10213 May 27, 1957 - PERFECTO DIMAYUGA, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. L-10427 May 27, 1957 - EULOGIO MILL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-10789 May 28, 1957 - AMADOR TAJANLANGIT, ET AL v. SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC., ET AL

    101 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-10823 May 28, 1957 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL v. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-8298 May 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO GARCIA

    101 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. L-9007 May 29, 1957 - GREGORIO FURIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    101 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-9193 May 29, 1957 - EUGENIO PEREZ v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. L-9224 May 29, 1957 - DY SUAT HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-9659 May 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO M. VALENSOY

    101 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-9775 May 29, 1957 - CITY OF BACOLOD, ET AL v. HON. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. L-9858 May 29, 1957 - IN RE: ONG SON CUI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-9888 May 29, 1957 - GRADY EDWARD JOHNSON v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    101 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-9960 May 29, 1957 - ROSITA ARCAS DE MARCAIDA v. THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO.

    101 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-10150 May 29, 1957 - FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. VICENTE TUPAS, ET AL.

    101 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. L-10594 May 29, 1957 - PONCIANO PRIMERO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    101 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-10664 May 29, 1957 - CRISTOBAL CAYABYAB v. LUIS T. CAYABYAB

    101 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-10710 May 29, 1957 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. HON. JUDGE JOSE TEODORO, SR., ET AL.

    101 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-9683 May 30, 1957 - Ong Tan v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. L-10807 May 30, 1957 - VITALIANO M. CRUZ v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    101 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-8894 May 31, 1957 - MARIA MATIAS DE BAUTISTA v. JOSE TEODORO, JR.

    101 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-9159 May 31, 1957 - FELIPE QUIRINO v. PHIL. NAT. BANK, ET AL.

    101 Phil 705

  • G.R. Nos. L-9738 & L-9771 May 31, 1957 - BLAS GUTIERREZ v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    101 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-10304 May 31, 1957 - SUN UN GIOK v. HERMOGENES MATUSA, ET AL.

    101 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-11201 May 31, 1957 - CIRILA NOCON v. HON. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    101 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957 - LAO H. ICHONG, ET AL v. JAIME HERNANDEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 1155