Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-158025 November 5, 1920

Counsel for both parties agree that the only point at issue is the determination of defendant's status in the transaction referred to. Plaintiffs contend that he is a surety; defendant contends that he is a guarantor. Plaintiffs also admit that if defendant is a guarantor, articles 1830, 1831, and 1834 of the Civil Code govern. In the original Spanish of the Civil Code now in force in the Philippine Islands, Title XIV of Book IV is entitled "De la Fianza." The Spanish word "fianza" is translated in the Washington and Walton editions of the Civil Code as "security." "Fianza" appears in the Fisher translation as "suretyship." The Spanish world "fiador" is found in all of the English translations of the Civil Code as "surety." The law of guaranty is not related of by that name in the Civil Code, although indirect reference to the same is made in the Code of Commerce. In terminology at least, no distinction is made in the Civil Code between the obligation of a surety and that of a guarantor. As has been done in the State of Louisiana, where, like in the Philippines, the substantive law has a civil law origin, we feel free to supplement the statutory law by a reference to the precepts of the law merchant. The points of difference between a surety and a guarantor are familiar to American authorities. A surety and a guarantor are alike in that each promises to answer for the debt or default of another. A surety and a guarantor are unlike in that the surety assumes liability as a regular party to the undertaking, while the liability as a regular party to upon an independent agreement to pay the obligation if the primary pay or fails to do so. A surety is charged as an original promissory; the engagement of the guarantor is a collateral undertaking. The obligation of the surety is primary; the obligation of the guarantor is secondary. (See U.S. vs. Varadero de la Quinta [1919], 40 Phil., 48; Lachman vs. Block [1894], 46 La. Ann., 649; Bedford vs. Kelley [1913], 173 Mich., 492; Brandt, on Suretyship and Guaranty, sec. 1, cited approvingly by many authorities.) Turning back again to our Civil Code, we first note that according to article 1822 "By fianza (security or suretyship) one person binds himself to pay or perform for a third person in case the latter should fail to do so." But "If the surety binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section fourth, Chapter third, Title first, shall be applicable." What the first portion of the cited article provides is, consequently, seen to be somewhat akin to the contract of guaranty, while what is last provided is practically equivalent to the contract of suretyship. When in subsequent articles found in section 1 of Chapter II of the title concerning fianza, the Code speaks of the effects of suretyship between surety and creditor, it has, in comparison with the common law, the effect of guaranty between guarantor and creditor. The civil law suretyship is, accordingly, nearly synonymous with the common

CARMEN CASTELLVI DE HIGGINS and HORACE L. HIGGINS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. GEORGE C. SELLNER, defendant-appellee. Wolfson, Wolfson and Schwarzkopf for appellants. William and Ferrier for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.: This is an action brought by plaintiffs to recover from defendant the sum of P10,000. The brief decision of the trial court held that the suit was premature, and absolved the defendant from the complaint, with the costs against the plaintiffs. The basis of plaintiff's action is a letter written by defendant George C. Sellner to John T. Macleod, agent for Mrs. Horace L. Higgins, on May 31, 1915, of the following tenor:lawph!l.net DEAR SIR: I hereby obligate and bind myself, my heirs, successors and assigns that if the promissory note executed the 29th day of May, 1915 by the Keystone Mining Co., W.H. Clarke, and John Maye, jointly and severally, in your favor and due six months after date for Pesos 10,000 is not fully paid at maturity with interest, I will, within fifteen days after notice of such default, pay you in cash the sum of P10,000 and interest upon your surrendering to me the three thousand shares of stock of the Keystone Mining Co. held by you as security for the payment of said note. Respectfully, (Sgd.) GEO. C. SELLNER.

law guaranty; and the civil law relationship existing between codebtors liable in solidum is similar to the common law suretyship. It is perfectly clear that the obligation assumed by defendant was simply that of a guarantor, or, to be more precise, of the fiador whose responsibility is fixed in the Civil Code. The letter of Mr. Sellner recites that if the promissory note is not paid at maturity, then, within fifteen days after notice of such default and upon surrender to him of the three thousand shares of Keystone Mining Company stock, he will assume responsibility. Sellner is not bound with the principals by the same instrument executed at the same time and on the same consideration, but his responsibility is a secondary one found in an independent collateral agreement, Neither is Sellner jointly and severally liable with the principal debtors. With particular reference, therefore, to appellants assignments of error, we hold that defendant Sellner is a guarantor within the meaning of the provisions of the Civil Code. There is also an equitable aspect to the case which reenforces this conclusion. The note executed by the Keystone Mining Company matured on November 29, 1915. Interest on the note was not accepted by the makers until September 30, 1916. When the note became due, it is admitted that the shares of stock used as collateral security were selling at par; that is, they were worth pesos 30,000. Notice that the note had not been paid was not given to and when the Keyston Mining Company stock was worthless. Defendant, consequently, through the laches of plaintiff, has lost possible chance to recoup, through the sale of the stock, any amount which he might be compelled to pay as a surety or guarantor. The "indulgence," as this word is used in the law of guaranty, of the creditors of the principal, as evidenced by the acceptance of interest, and by failure promptly to notify the guarantor, may thus have served to discharge the guarantor. For quite different reasons, which, nevertheless, arrive at the same result, judgment is affirmed, with costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered. Johnson, Araullo, and Villamor, JJ., concur. Mapa, C.J. and Avancea, J., concur in the result.

G.R. No. L-29139 November 15, 1974 CONSUELO P. PICZON, RUBEN O. PICZON and AIDA P. ALCANTARA, plaintiffsappellants, vs. ESTEBAN PICZON and SOSING-LOBOS & CO., INC., defendants-appellees. Vicente C. Santos for plaintiffs-appellants. Jacinto R. Bohol for defendant-appellee Sosing-Lobos & Co., Inc. Vicente M. Macabidang for defendant-appellee Esteban Piczon.

(a) Will the payment of twelve per cent interest of P12,500.00 commence to run from August 6, 1964 when plaintiffs made the first demand or from August 29, 1956 when the obligation becomes due and demandable? (b) Is defendant Esteban Piczon liable as a guarantor or a surety? That the parties are hereby required to file their respective memorandum if they so desire on or before September 15, 1967 to discuss the legal issues and therewith the case will be considered submitted for decision. WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby considered submitted based on the aforesaid facts agreed upon and upon submission of the parties of their respective memorandum on or before September 15, 1967. SO ORDERED. 1 (Record on Appeal pp. 28-30.) Annex "A", the actionable document of appellants reads thus: AGREEMENT OF LOAN KNOW YE ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

BARREDO, J.:p Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Samar in its Civil Case No. 5156, entitled Consuelo P. Piczon, et al. vs. Esteban Piczon, et al., sentencing defendants-appellees, Sosing Lobos and Co., Inc., as principal, and Esteban Piczon, as guarantor, to pay plaintiffs-appellants "the sum of P12,500.00 with 12% interest from August 6, 1964 until said principal amount of P12,500.00 shall have been duly paid, and the costs." After issues were joined and at the end of the pre-trial held on August 22, 1967, the trial court issued the following order: "When this case was called for pre-trial, plaintiffs and defendants through their lawyers, appeared and entered into the following agreement: 1. That defendants admit the due execution of Annexes "A" and "B" of the complaint; 2. That consequently defendant Sosing-Lobos and Co., Inc. binds itself to the plaintiffs for P12,500.00, the same to be paid on or before October 31, 1967 together with the interest that this court may determine. That the issues in this case are legal ones namely:

That I, ESTEBAN PICZON, of legal age, married, Filipino, and resident of and with postal address in the municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, in my capacity as the President of the corporation known as the "SOSING-LOBOS and CO., INC.," as controlling stockholder, and at the same time as guarantor for the same, do by these presents contract a loan of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P12,500.00), Philippine Currency, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, from the "Piczon and Co., Inc." another corporation, the main offices of the two corporations being in Catbalogan, Samar, for which I undertake, bind and agree to use the loan as surety cash deposit for registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the incorporation papers relative to the "Sosing-Lobos and Co., Inc.," and to return or pay the same amount with Twelve Per Cent (12%) interest per annum, commencing from the date of execution hereof, to the "Piczon and Co., Inc., as soon as the said

incorporation papers are duly registered and the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the aforesaid Commission. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto signed my name in Catbalogan, Samar, Philippines, this 28th day of September, 1956.

interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum." In the case at bar, the "interest agreed upon" by the parties in Annex A was to commence from the execution of said document. Appellees' contention that the reference in Article 2209 to delay incurred by the debtor which can serve as the basis for liability for interest is to that defined in Article 1169 of the Civil Code reading thus: Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may exist: (1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declares; or (2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; or (3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform. In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins. is untenable. In Quiroz vs. Tan Guinlay, 5 Phil. 675, it was held that the article cited by appellees (which was Article 1100 of the Old Civil Code read in relation to Art. 1101) is applicable only when the obligation is to do something other than the payment of money. And in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (P.I.) vs. Delgado, 104 Phil. 920, the Court squarely ruled that if the contract stipulates from what time interest will be counted, said stipulated time controls, and, therefore interest is payable from such time, and not from the date of the filing of the complaint (at p. 925). Were that not the law, there would be no basis for the provision of Article 2212 of the Civil Code providing that "(I)nterest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point." Incidentally, appellants would have been entitled to the benefit of this article, had they not failed to

(Record on Appeal, pp. 6-7.) The trial court having rendered judgment in the tenor aforequoted, appellants assign the following alleged errors: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF 12% INTEREST ON THE PRINCIPAL OF P12,500.00 FROM AUGUST 6, 1964, ONLY, INSTEAD OF FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1956, WHEN ANNEX "A" WAS DULY EXECUTED. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING DEFENDANT ESTEBAN PICZON AS GUARANTOR ONLY AND NOT AS SURETY. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. (Appellants' Brief, pp. a to b.) Appellants' first assignment of error is well taken. Instead of requiring appellees to pay interest at 12% only from August 6, 1964, the trial court should have adhered to the terms of the agreement which plainly provides that Esteban Piczon had obligated Sosing-Lobos and Co., Inc. and himself to "return or pay (to Piczon and Co., Inc.) the same amount (P12,500.00) with Twelve Per Cent (12%) interest per annum commencing from the date of the execution hereof", Annex A, which was on September 28, 1956. Under Article 2209 of the Civil Code "(i)f the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the

plead the same in their complaint. Their prayer for it in their brief is much too late. Appellees had no opportunity to meet the issue squarely at the pre-trial. As regards the other two assignments of error, appellants' pose cannot be sustained. Under the terms of the contract, Annex A, Esteban Piczon expressly bound himself only as guarantor, and there are no circumstances in the record from which it can be deduced that his liability could be that of a surety. A guaranty must be express, (Article 2055, Civil Code) and it would be violative of the law to consider a party to be bound as a surety when the very word used in the agreement is "guarantor." Moreover, as well pointed out in appellees' brief, under the terms of the pre-trial order, appellants accepted the express assumption of liability by Sosing-Lobos & Co., Inc. for the payment of the obligation in question, thereby modifying their original posture that inasmuch as that corporation did not exist yet at the time of the agreement, Piczon necessarily must have bound himself as insurer. As already explained earlier, appellants' prayer for payment of legal interest upon interest due from the filing of the complaint can no longer be entertained, the same not having been made an issue in the pleadings in the court below. We do not believe that such a substantial matter can be deemed included in a general prayer for "any other relief just and equitable in the premises", especially when, as in this case, the pre-trial order does not mention it in the enumeration of the issues to be resolved by the court. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the judgment of the trial court is modified so as to make appellees liable for the stipulated interest of 12% per annum from September 28, 1956, instead of August 6, 1964. In all other respects, said judgment is affirmed. Costs against appellees. Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur.

INOCENCIA YU DINO and her HUSBAND doing business under the trade name "CANDY CLAIRE FASHION GARMENTS", petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROMAN SIO, doing business under the name "UNIVERSAL TOY MASTER MANUFACTURING", respondents. D E C I S I O N* PUNO, J.: Though people say, "better late than never", the law frowns upon those who assert their rights past the eleventh hour. For failing to timely institute their action, the petitioners are forever barred from claiming a sum of money from the respondent. This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the amended decision of the respondent court dated January 24, 1994 reversing its April 30, 1993 decision and dismissing the plaintiff-petitioners' Complaint on the ground of prescription. The following undisputed facts gave rise to the case at bar: Petitioners spouses Dino, doing business under the trade name "Candy Claire Fashion Garment" are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling shirts. Respondent Sio is part owner and general manager of a manufacturing corporation doing business under the trade name "Universal Toy Master Manufacturing." Petitioners and respondent Sio entered into a contract whereby the latter would manufacture for the petitioners 20,000 pieces of vinyl frogs and 20,000 pieces of vinyl mooseheads at P7.00 per piece in accordance with the sample approved by the petitioners. These frogs and mooseheads were to be attached to the shirts petitioners would manufacture and sell. Respondent Sio delivered in several installments the 40,000 pieces of frogs and mooseheads. The last delivery was made on September 28, 1988. Petitioner fully paid the agreed price. Subsequently, petitioners returned to respondent 29,772 pieces of frogs and mooseheads for failing to comply with the approved sample. The return was made on different dates: the initial one on December 12, 1988 consisting of 1,720 pieces, the second on January 11, 1989, and the last on January 17, 1989. Petitioners then demanded from the respondent a refund of the purchase price of the returned goods in the amount of P208,404.00. As respondent Sio refused to pay, petitioners filed on July 24, 1989 an action for collection of a sum of money in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 38.

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, viz: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs Vicente and Inocencia Dino and against defendant Toy Master Manufacturing, Inc. ordering the latter to pay the former: 1. The amount of Two Hundred Eight Thousand Four Hundred Four (P208,404.00) Pesos with legal interest thereon from July 5, 1989, until fully paid; and 2. The amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos as attorney's fees and the costs of this suit. The counterclaim on the other hand is hereby dismissed for lack of merit." Respondent Sio sought recourse in the Court of Appeals. In its April 30, 1993 decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court decision. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration alleging therein that the petitioners' action for collection of sum of money based on a breach of warranty had already prescribed. On January 24, 1994, the respondent court reversed its decision and dismissed petitioners' Complaint for having been filed beyond the prescriptive period. The amended decision read in part, viz: "Even if there is failure to raise the affirmative defense of prescription in a motion to dismiss or in an appropriate pleading (answer, amended or supplemental answer) and an amendment would no longer be feasible, still prescription, if apparent on the face of the complaint may be favorably considered (Spouses Matias B. Aznar, III, et al. vs. Hon. Juanito A. Bernad, etc., supra, G.R. 81190, May 9, 1988). The rule in Gicano vs. Gegato (supra) was reiterated in Severo v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 84051, May 19, 1989). WHEREFORE the Motion For Reconsideration is granted. The judgment of this Court is set aside and judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING the judgment of the trial court and dismissing plaintiff's complaint." Hence, this petition with the following assignment of errors: I. The respondent Court of Appeals seriously erred in dismissing the complaint of the Petitioners on the ground that the action had prescribed.

II. The respondent Court of Appeals seriously erred in holding that the defense of prescription would still be considered despite the fact that it was not raised in the answer, if apparent on the face of the complaint. We first determine the nature of the action filed in the trial court to resolve the issue of prescription. Petitioners claim that the Complaint they filed in the trial court on July 24, 1989 was one for the collection of a sum of money. Respondent contends that it was an action for breach of warranty as the sum of money petitioners sought to collect was actually a refund of the purchase price they paid for the alleged defective goods they bought from the respondent. We uphold the respondent's contention. The following provisions of the New Civil Code are apropos: "Art. 1467. A contract for the delivery at a certain price of an article which the vendor in the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the general market, whether the same is on hand at the time or not, is a contract of sale, but if the goods are to be manufactured specially for the customer and upon his special order, and not for the general market, it is a contract for a piece of work." "Art. 1713. By the contract for a piece of work the contractor binds himself to execute a piece of work for the employer, in consideration of a certain price or compensation. The contractor may either employ only his labor or skill, or also furnish the material." As this Court ruled in Engineering & Machinery Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al., "a contract for a piece of work, labor and materials may be distinguished from a contract of sale by the inquiry as to whether the thing transferred is one not in existence and which would never have existed but for the order of the person desiring it. In such case, the contract is one for a piece of work, not a sale. On the other hand, if the thing subject of the contract would have existed and been the subject of a sale to some other person even if the order had not been given then the contract is one of sale." The contract between the petitioners and respondent stipulated that respondent would manufacture upon order of the petitioners 20,000 pieces of vinyl frogs and 20,000 pieces of vinyl mooseheads according to the samples specified and approved by the petitioners. Respondent Sio did not ordinarily manufacture these products, but only upon order of the petitioners and at the price agreed upon. Clearly, the contract executed by and between the petitioners and the respondent was a contract for a piece of work. At any rate, whether the agreement between the parties

was one of a contract of sale or a piece of work, the provisions on warranty of title against hidden defects in a contract of sale apply to the case at bar, viz: "Art. 1714. If the contractor agrees to produce the work from material furnished by him, he shall deliver the thing produced to the employer and transfer dominion over the thing. This contract shall be governed by the following articles as well as by the pertinent provisions on warranty of title and against hidden defects and the payment of price in a contract of sale." "Art. 1561. The vendor shall be responsible for warranty against the hidden defects which the thing sold may have, should they render it unfit for the use for which it is intended, or should they diminish its fitness for such use to such an extent that, had the vendee been aware thereof, he would not have acquired it or would have given a lower price for it; but said vendor shall not be answerable for patent defects or those which may be visible, or for those which are not visible if the vendee is an expert who, by reason of his trade or profession, should have known them." Petitioners aver that they discovered the defects in respondent's products when customers in their (petitioners') shirt business came back to them complaining that the frog and moosehead figures attached to the shirts they bought were torn. Petitioners allege that they did not readily see these hidden defects upon their acceptance. A hidden defect is one which is unknown or could not have been known to the vendee. Petitioners then returned to the respondent 29,772 defective pieces of vinyl products and demanded a refund of their purchase price in the amount of P208,404.00. Having failed to collect this amount, they filed an action for collection of a sum of money. Article 1567 provides for the remedies available to the vendee in case of hidden defects, viz: "Art. 1567. In the cases of Articles 1561, 1562, 1564, 1565 and 1566, the vendee may elect between withdrawing from the contract and demanding a proportionate reduction of the price, with damages in either case." By returning the 29,772 pieces of vinyl products to respondent and asking for a return of their purchase price, petitioners were in effect "withdrawing from the contract" as provided in Art. 1567. The prescriptive period for this kind of action is provided in Art. 1571 of the New Civil Code, viz: "Art. 1571. Actions arising from the provisions of the preceding ten articles shall be barred after six months from the delivery of the thing sold." (Emphasis supplied)

There is no dispute that respondent made the last delivery of the vinyl products to petitioners on September 28, 1988. It is also settled that the action to recover the purchase price of the goods petitioners returned to the respondent was filed on July 24, 1989, more than nine months from the date of last delivery. Petitioners having filed the action three months after the six-month period for filing actions for breach of warranty against hidden defects stated in Art. 1571, the appellate court dismissed the action. Petitioners fault the ruling on the ground that it was too late in the day for respondent to raise the defense of prescription. The law then applicable to the case at bar, Rule 9, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court, provides: "Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived; except the failure to state a cause of action . . . " Thus, they claim that since the respondent failed to raise the defense of prescription in a motion to dismiss or in its answer, it is deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's decision. As a rule, the defense of prescription cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, we held in Ramos v. Osorio, viz: "It is settled law in this jurisdiction that the defense of prescription is waivable, and that if it was not raised as a defense in the trial court, it cannot be considered on appeal, the general rule being that the appellate court is not authorized to consider and resolve any question not properly raised in the lower court (Subido vs. Lacson, 55 O.G. 8281, 8285; Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. I, p. 784, 1947 Edition)." However, this is not a hard and fast rule. In Gicano v. Gegato, we held: ". . .(T)rial courts have authority and discretion to dimiss an action on the ground of prescription when the parties' pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred; (Francisco v. Robles, Feb, 15, 1954; Sison v. McQuaid, 50 O.G. 97; Bambao v. Lednicky, Jan. 28, 1961; Cordova v. Cordova, Jan. 14, 1958; Convets, Inc. v. NDC, Feb. 28, 1958; 32 SCRA 529; Sinaon v. Sorongan, 136 SCRA 408); and it may do so on the basis of a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1,f, Rule 16, Rules of Court), or an answer which sets up such ground as an affirmative defense (Sec. 5, Rule 16), or even if the ground is alleged after judgment on the merits, as in a motion for reconsideration (Ferrer v. Ericta, 84 SCRA 705); or even if the defense has not been asserted at all, as where no statement thereof is found in the pleadings (Garcia v.

Mathis, 100 SCRA 250; PNB v. Pacific Commission House, 27 SCRA 766; Chua Lamco v. Dioso, et al., 97 Phil. 821); or where a defendant has been declared in default (PNB v. Perez, 16 SCRA 270). What is essential only, to repeat, is that the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent on the record; either in the averments of the plaintiff's complaint, or otherwise established by the evidence." (emphasis supplied) In Aldovino, et al. v. Alunan, et al., the Court en banc reiterated the Garcia v. Mathis doctrine cited in the Gicano case that when the plaintiff's own complaint shows clearly that the action has prescribed, the action may be dismissed even if the defense of prescription was not invoked by the defendant. It is apparent in the records that respondent made the last delivery of vinyl products to the petitioners on September 28, 1988. Petitioners admit this in their Memorandum submitted to the trial court and reiterate it in their Petition for Review. It is also apparent in the Complaint that petitioners instituted their action on July 24, 1989. The issue for resolution is whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals could dismiss the petitioners' action if the defense of prescription was raised for the first time on appeal but is apparent in the records. Following the Gicano doctrine that allows dismissal of an action on the ground of prescription even after judgment on the merits, or even if the defense was not raised at all so long as the relevant dates are clear on the record, we rule that the action filed by the petitioners has prescribed. The dates of delivery and institution of the action are undisputed. There are no new issues of fact arising in connection with the question of prescription, thus carving out the case at bar as an exception from the general rule that prescription if not impleaded in the answer is deemed waived. Even if the defense of prescription was raised for the first time on appeal in respondent's Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate court's decision, this does not militate against the due process right of the petitioners. On appeal, there was no new issue of fact that arose in connection with the question of prescription, thus it cannot be said that petitioners were not given the opportunity to present evidence in the trial court to meet a factual issue. Equally important, petitioners had the opportunity to oppose the defense of prescription in their Opposition to the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed in the appellate court and in their Petition for Review in this Court. This Court's application of the Osorio and Gicano doctrines to the case at bar is confirmed and now enshrined in Rule 9, Sec. 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, viz:

"Section 1. Defense and objections not pleaded. - Defenses and objections not pleaded whether in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim." (Emphasis supplied) WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the impugned decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 24, 1994 is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-20469

August 31, 1965

PEDRO C. PASTORAL, petitioner, vs. MUTUAL SECURITY INSURANCE CORPORATION and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. San Juan, Africa and Benedicto for petitioner. Vicente L. San Luis for respondents. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Petition by Pedro C. Pastoral for the review and reversal of a decision of the Court of Appeals (in its Case CA-G.R. No. 29180-R), that absolved the Mutual Security Insurance Corporation of its liability to the said petitioner, reversing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The facts are stated by the Court of Appeals to be as follows: It appears that on and from October 1, 1957, plaintiff Pedro C. Pastoral leased a crane to defendant Mapada & Company, Inc., at a monthly rental of P900.00, Exhibit A. The contract provides that if the crane be not returned 10 days after notice therefor, defendant will pay plaintiff P15,000, as the value of the crane. In compliance with paragraph 2(b) of Exhibit A, defendant on October 22, 1957, put up a surety bond, Exhibit B, in the total amount of P15,000 executed by appellant Mutual Security Insurance Corporation to fully and faithfully guarantee compliance by defendant of "all the conditions and obligations" under the lease contract. Upon request of defendant which was expecting some money from the construction contract with the government about the end of November, plaintiff deferred its collection of rentals for the months of October and November, 1957 until the beginning of December; but when no payment was made despite demands, plaintiff advised, and demanded payment from, the surety company on December 5, 1957, Exhibit C. Up to the date of the trial and despite numerous demands by plaintiff, defendant failed to pay any rental (except P2,000 in March, 1958 from the Bureau of Public Highways) nor to return the crane to plaintiff. After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, ordering the latter solidarity to pay the plaintiff the sum of P7,700 as unpaid rentals up to and including the month of September, 1958 when the complaint was filed plus P900 as monthly rental from the month of

October, 1958 until the crane is actually returned, or in default thereof to pay to plaintiff the sum of P15,000 for the crane, provided that the amount for which appellant Mutual Security Insurance Corporation shall be liable shall not exceed the sum of P15,000; and to pay the costs. Only the surety company appealed, urging that the trial court erred in not holding that it was released from liability under the surety bond which had become null and void from the failure of plaintiff to report within five days to appellant the violation of the lease contract. The Contract of Lease of Construction Equipment, Exhibit A, provides inter alia: "2. That the lessee obligates to pay a monthly rental of Nine Hundred Pesos (P900) Philippine Currency payable at the residence of the LESSOR ..."; while the surety bond, Exhibit B, after guaranteeing compliance with the lease contract provides: "Any violation of said contract will be reported to the herein Surety Company within (5) days, otherwise, this bond will be null and void." Upon the facts above narrated, the Court of Appeals decided that Pastoral's failure to notify the surety of the principal's defaults between October 6-10 and November 6-10, 1957, and in notifying the surety only on December 5, 1957, constituted a violation of the conditions of the bond that exonerated the surety from liability. Unable to obtain reconsideration of the decision, Pastoral resorted to this Court. We find the appealed decision to be in error. On the basis that Pastoral received a copy of the bond (containing the requirement to notify the surety of any default within 5 days) only on November 21, 1957 and this date is not seriously disputed Pastoral's obligation to notify it within five (5) days of the defaults in the payment of the first two monthly rentals, falling due in early October and early November, had become impossible of performance, so that compliance with the 5-day notice requirement had become excused for those two months. No reason is shown why Pastoral should anticipate that the surety would impose this condition when the lease contract merely required that lessee Mapada & Co., Inc. should furnish a surety bond. That Pastoral knew nothing about such a condition before November 21 is further emphasized by the fact that in late October or early November he agreed with Mapada & Co., Inc., to defer payment of the October and November rentals to the end of November.

By imposing on Pastoral the condition of notifying it within 5 days of default, the surety company made it necessary that Pastoral should accept the bond; and Pastoral could not do so before learning of it. This Court has ruled that where the guaranty requires action by the creditor before the obligation becomes fixed, it is not binding until accepted (National Bank vs. Garcia, 47 Phil. 63; Texas Co. [Phil.] Inc. vs. Alonzo, 73 Phil. 90). The rule is grounded on common sense; otherwise, the debtor and the guarantor could easily defraud the creditor by inserting in the bond conditions that would render it nugatory. The suretyship contract, therefore, was not perfected and was not binding on Pastoral until November 21, 1957, when he received copy thereof and tacitly accepted it. By then two defaults had already occurred (even disregarding the extension agreement of October 31, hereinafter discussed); and Pastoral was in no position to give notice of them within 5 days after default, as required by the bond, because the latest happened on November 5. The 5-day period to notify expired November 10, and Pastoral only learned of the existence of the condition on November 21. Ad impossibilia nemor tenetur. In fact, by not notifying Pastoral earlier, the surety must be deemed to have waived the condition as to rentals already due, since a condition is deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment (Civ. Code, Art. 1186). The Court of Appeals held that Pastoral was duty-bound to know and secure copy of the surety contract within a reasonable time from its execution on October 22, 1957, and that not having done so, he was chargeable with its contents. We find no justification for this pronouncement. If anyone was obligated to notify Pastoral of the conditions attached to the bond, that one was the guarantor. Pastoral was not obligated to inquire, since his assent to the condition was necessary; and if no acceptable bond was forthcoming, he could always rescind the lease of the machinery to Mapada & Co., Inc., and recover his crane. The Court of Appeals further held that the act of Pastoral in granting to the debtor on October 31, 1957 time up to the end of November, 1957 to pay the rentals that fell due on the first five days of October and November, without the surety's consent, constituted a material alteration that discharged the surety. We agree with appellant that this view is untenable. When Pastoral agreed on October 31 that the October and November rentals be paid at the end of November, he had not yet learned of them on November 21. On the latter date, the debtor was not yet in default, because the extension given had wiped out the previous failures to pay on October 5 and November 5. The first default after the bond had become effective in law (on November 21) occurred on the last day of November, and Pastoral gave notice

thereof to the surety on the 5th day of December, within the five-day period prescribed by the bond. A contract of guaranty or suretyship is only prospective, and not retroactive in operation (Socony Vacuum, Corp. vs. Miraflores, 67 Phil. 304; El Venceder vs. Canlas, 44 Phil. 699; Asiastic Petroleum Co. vs. De Pio, 46 Phil. 167), unless a contrary intent is clearly shown. Consequently, Pastoral, was entitled to assume that the notice provided by the surety bond did not, and was not intended to include any defaults incurred prior to his acceptance. The surety, which drafted the bond, could have expressly provided, if it so chose, that the five-day notice therein provided should extend to the amounts of falling due on October 5 and November 5, but the surety failed to do so, and cannot blame Pastoral therefor. The fault in the reasoning of the Court of Appeals lies in its assumption that the surety bond became effective immediately, without taking into account that the fiveday notice provision required the creditor's assent to become effective and binding This assent could not be given before November 21, when Pastoral learned of the condition for the first time and tacitly agreed to it, as shown by his notice to the surety on December 5, that the principal debtor had defaulted. It is worth stressing here that this Court has repeatedly decided (Pacific Tobacco Co. vs. Lorenzana and Visayan Surety, L-8086, October 31, 1957; Phil. Surety vs. Royal Oil Products, L-9981, Oct. 31, 1957; Atkins Kroll & Co. vs. Reyes, L-11936, April 30, 1959) that the rule holding sureties to be favorites of the law, and their contracts to be strictissimi juris, does not apply to compensated sureties, following United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. vs. Golden Pressed & Fire Brick Co., 191 U.S. 416, 48 L. ed. 242: We are familiar with the old rule of strict construction in favor of the surety, based upon the underlying principle that formerly parties became sureties, not for hire but as a matter of accommodation, usually lending their names through motives of friendship, and hence a surety obligation would be construed most strongly in their favor. But the rule "strictissimi juris" has no application to surety companies, organized for the purpose of conducting an indemnity business at established rates of compensation. and which, it may be added, protect themselves against loss by exacting adequate counterbonds. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and that of the Court of First Instance of Manila is upheld and confirmed. Respondent-appellee Mutual Security Insurance Corporation shall pay the costs in all instances.

G.R. No. L-42518

August 29, 1936

WISE & CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO P. TANGLAO, defendant-appellant. The appellant in his own behalf. Franco and Reinoso for appellee. AVANCEA, C. J.: In the Court of First Instance of Manila, Wise & Co. instituted civil case No. 41129 against Cornelio C. David for the recovery of a certain sum of money David was an agent of Wise & Co. and the amount claimed from him was the result of a liquidation of accounts showing that he was indebted in said amount. In said case Wise & Co. asked and obtained a preliminary attachment of David's property. To avoid the execution of said attachment, David succeeded in having his Attorney Tanglao execute on January 16, 1932, a power of attorney (Exhibit A) in his favor, with the following clause: To sign for me as guarantor for himself in his indebtedness to Wise & Company of Manila, which indebtedness appears in civil case No. 41129, of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and to mortgage my lot (No. 517-F of the subdivision plan Psd-20, being a portion of lot No. 517 of the cadastral survey of Angeles, G. L. R. O. Cad. Rec. No. 124), to guarantee the said obligations to the Wise & Company, Inc., of Manila. On the 18th of said month David subscribed and on the 23d thereof, filed in court, the following document (Exhibit B): COMPROMISE Come now the parties, plaintiff by the undersigned attorneys and defendants in his own behalf and respectfully state: I. That the defendant confesses judgment for the sum of six hundred forty pesos (P640), payable at the rate of eighty pesos (P80) per month, the first payment to be made on February 15, 1932 and successively thereafter until the full amount is paid; the plaintiff accepts this stipulation.

II. That as security for the payment of said sum of P640, defendant binds in favor of, and pledges to the plaintiff, the following real properties: 1. House of light materials described under tax declaration No. 9650 of the municipality of Angeles, Province of Pampanga, assessed at P320. 2. Accesoria apartments with a ground floor of 180 sq. m. with the first story of cement and galvanized of iron roofing located on the lot belonging to Mariano Tablante Geronimo, said accesoria is described under tax declaration No. 11164 of the municipality of Angeles, Province of Pampanga, assessed at P800. 3. Parcel of land described under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2307 of the Province of Pampanga recorded in the name of Dionisio Tanglao of which defendant herein holds a special power of attorney to pledge the same in favor of Wise & Co., Inc., as a guarantee for the payment of the claim against him in the above entitled cause. The said parcel of land is bounded as follows: NE. lot No. 517 "Part" de Narciso Garcia; SE. Calle Rizal; SW. lot No. 517 "Part" de Bernardino Tiongco; NW. lot No. 508 de Clemente Dayrit; containing 431 sq. m. and described in tax declaration No. 11977 of the municipality of Angeles, Pampanga, assessed at P423. That this guaranty is attached to the properties above mentioned as first lien and for this reason the parties agree to register this compromise with the Register of Deeds of Pampanga, said lien to be cancelled only on the payment of the full amount of the judgment in this case. Wherefore, the parties pray that the above compromise be admitted and that an order issue requiring the register of Deeds of Pampanga to register this compromise previous to the filing of the legal fees. David paid the sum of P343.47 to Wise & Co., on account of the P640 which he bound himself to pay under Exhibit B, leaving an unpaid balance of P296.53. Wise & Co. now institutes this case against Tanglao for the recovery of said balance of P296.53.

There is no doubt that under Exhibit, A, Tanglao empowered David, in his name, to enter into a contract of suretyship and a contract of mortgage of the property described in the document, with Wise & Co. However, David used said power of attorney only to mortgage the property and did not enter into contract of suretyship. Nothing is stated in Exhibit B to the effect that Tanglao became David's surety for the payment of the sum in question. Neither is this inferable from any of the clauses thereof, and even if this inference might be made, it would be insufficient to create an obligation of suretyship which, under the law, must be express and cannot be presumed. It appears from the foregoing that defendant, Tanglao could not have contracted any personal responsibility for the payment of the sum of P640. The only obligation which Exhibit B, in connection with Exhibit A, has created on the part of Tanglao, is that resulting from the mortgage of a property belonging to him to secure the payment of said P640. However, a foreclosure suit is not instituted in this case against Tanglao, but a purely personal action for the recovery of the amount still owed by David. At any rate, even granting that defendant Tanglao may be considered as a surety under Exhibit B, the action does not yet lie against him on the ground that all the legal remedies against the debtor have not previously been exhausted (art. 1830 of the Civil Code, and decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of March 2, 1891). The plaintiff has in its favor a judgment against debtor David for the payment of debt. It does not appear that the execution of this judgment has been asked for and Exhibit B, on the other hand, shows that David has two pieces of property the value of which is in excess of the balance of the debt the payment of which is sought of Tanglao in his alleged capacity as surety. For the foregoing considerations, the appealed judgment is reversed and the defendant is absolved from the complaint, with the costs to the plaintiff. So ordered. Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Recto, and Laurel, JJ., concur.

CHESTER BABST, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC., and PACIFIC MULTI-COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, respondents. [G.R. No. 104625. January 26, 2001]

WHEREAS, Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc. has requested the assistance of the Company in obtaining credit facilities to enable it to maintain the present level of its tin-plate manufacturing output and the Company is willing to extend said requested assistance; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises ---

ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PACIFIC MULTI-COMMERCIAL CORPORATION and CHESTER BABST, respondents. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: These consolidated petitions seek the review of the Decision dated April 29, 1991 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 17282[1] entitled, Bank of the Philippine Islands, Plaintiff-Appellee versus Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc., Pacific MultiCommercial Corporation, and Chester G. Babst, Defendants-Appellants. The complaint was commenced principally to enforce payment of a promissory note and three domestic letters of credit which Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc. (ELISCON) executed and opened with the Commercial Bank and Trust Company (CBTC). On June 8, 1973, ELISCON obtained from CBTC a loan in the amount of P8,015,900.84, with interest at the rate of 14% per annum, evidenced by a promissory note.[2] ELISCON defaulted in its payments, leaving an outstanding indebtedness in the amount of P2,795,240.67 as of October 31, 1982.[3] The letters of credit, on the other hand, were opened for ELISCON by CBTC using the credit facilities of Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation (MULTI) with the said bank, pursuant to the Resolution of the Board of Directors of MULTI adopted on August 31, 1977 which reads: WHEREAS, at least 90% of the Companys gross sales is generated by the sale of tin-plates manufactured by Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc.; WHEREAS, it is to the best interests of the Company to continue handling said tinplate line;

BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, That the PRESIDENT & GENERAL MANAGER, ANTONIO ROXAS CHUA, be, as he is hereby empowered to allow and authorize ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC. to avail and make use of the Credit Line of PACIFIC MULTI-COMMERCIAL CORPORATION with the COMMERCIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Makati, Metro Manila; RESOLVED, FURTHER, That the Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation guarantee, as it does hereby guarantee, solidarily, the payment of the corresponding Letters of Credit upon maturity of the same; RESOLVED, FINALLY, That copies of this resolution be furnished the Commercial Bank & Trust Company of the Philippines, Makati, Metro Manila, for their information.[4] Subsequently, on September 26, 1978, Antonio Roxas Chua and Chester G. Babst executed a Continuing Suretyship,[5] whereby they bound themselves jointly and severally liable to pay any existing indebtedness of MULTI to CBTC to the extent of P8,000,000.00 each. Sometime in October 1978, CBTC opened for ELISCON in favor of National Steel Corporation three (3) domestic letters of credit in the amounts of P1,946,805.73,[6] P1,702,869.32[7] and P200,307.72,[8] respectively, which ELISCON used to purchase tin black plates from National Steel Corporation. ELISCON defaulted in its obligation to pay the amounts of the letters of credit, leaving an outstanding account, as of October 31, 1982, in the total amount of P3,963,372.08.[9] On December 22, 1980, the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and CBTC entered into a merger, wherein BPI, as the surviving corporation, acquired all the assets and assumed all the liabilities of CBTC.[10] Meanwhile, ELISCON encountered financial difficulties and became heavily indebted to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). In order to settle its obligations, ELISCON proposed to convey to DBP by way of dacion en pago all its fixed assets

mortgaged with DBP, as payment for its total indebtedness in the amount of P201,181,833.16. On December 28, 1978, ELISCON and DBP executed a Deed of Cession of Property in Payment of Debt.[11] In June 1981, ELISCON called its creditors to a meeting to announce the take-over by DBP of its assets. In October 1981, DBP formally took over the assets of ELISCON, including its indebtedness to BPI. Thereafter, DBP proposed formulas for the settlement of all of ELISCONs obligations to its creditors, but BPI expressly rejected the formula submitted to it for not being acceptable.[12] Consequently, on January 17, 1983, BPI, as successor-in-interest of CBTC, instituted with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 147, a complaint[13] for sum of money against ELISCON, MULTI and Babst, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 49226. ELISCON, in its Answer,[14] argued that the complaint was premature since DBP had made serious efforts to settle its obligations with BPI. Babst also filed his Answer alleging that he signed the Continuing Suretyship on the understanding that it covers only obligations which MULTI incurred solely for its benefit and not for any third party liability, and he had no knowledge or information of any transaction between MULTI and ELISCON.[15] MULTI, for its part, denied knowledge of the merger between BPI and CBTC, and averred that the guaranty under its board resolution did not cover purchases made by ELISCON in the form of trust receipts. It set up a cross-claim against ELISCON alleging that the latter should be held liable for any judgment which the court may render against it in favor of BPI.[16] On February 20, 1987, the trial court rendered its Decision,[17] the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against all the defendants: 1) Ordering defendant ELISCON to pay the plaintiff the amount of P2,795,240.67 due on the promissory note, Annex A of the Complaint as of 31 October 1982 and the amount of P3,963,372.08 due on the three (3) domestic letters of credit, also as of 31 October 1982;

2) Ordering defendant ELISCON to pay the plaintiff interests and related charges on the principal of said promissory note of P2,102,232.02 at the rates provided in said note from and after 31 October 1982 until full payment thereof, and on the principal of the three (3) domestic letters of credit of P3,564,349.25 interests and related charges at the rates provided in said letters of credit, from and after 31 October 1982 until full payment; 3) Ordering defendant ELISCON to pay interests at the legal rate on all interests and related charges but unpaid as of the filing of this complaint, until full payment thereof; 4) Ordering defendant ELISCON to pay attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount due under the preceding paragraphs; 5) Ordering defendants Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and defendant Chester Babst to pay, jointly and severally with defendant ELISCON, the total sum of P3,963,372.08 due on the three (3) domestic letters of credit as of 31 October 1982 with interests and related charges on the principal amount of P3,963,372.08 at the rates provided in said letters of credit from 30 October 1982 until fully paid, but to the extent of not more than P8,000,000.00 in the case of defendant Chester Babst; 6) Ordering defendant Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and defendant Chester Babst to pay, jointly and severally plaintiff interests at the legal rate on all interests and related charges already accrued but unpaid on said three (3) domestic letters of credit as of the date of the filing of this Complaint until full payment thereof; 7) Ordering defendant Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and defendant Chester Babst to pay, jointly and severally, attorneys fees of not less than 10% of the total amount due under paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof. With costs. SO ORDERED. In due time, ELISCON, MULTI and Babst filed their respective notices of appeal.[18] On April 29, 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered the appealed Decision as follows: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is MODIFIED, to now read (with the underlining to show the principal changes from the decision of the lower court) thus: 1) Ordering appellant ELISCON to pay the appellee BPI the amount of P2,731,005.60 due on the promissory note, Annex A of the Complaint as of 31

October 1982 and the amount of P3,963,372.08 due on the three (3) domestic letters of credit, also as of 31 October 1982; 2) Ordering appellant ELISCON to pay the appellee BPI interests and related charges on the principal of said promissory note of P2,102,232.02 at the rates provided in said note from and after 31 October 1982 until full payment thereof, and on the principal of the three (3) domestic letters of credit of P3,564,349.25 interests and related charges at the rates provided in said letters of credit, from and after 31 October 1982 until full payment; 3) Ordering appellant ELISCON to pay appellee BPI interest at the legal rate on all interests and related charges but unpaid as of the filing of this complaint, until full payment thereof; 4) Ordering appellant Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and appellant Chester G. Babst to pay appellee BPI, jointly and severally with appellant ELISCON, the total sum of P3,963,372.08 due on the three (3) domestic letters of credit as of 31 October 1982 with interest and related charges on the principal amount of P3,963,372.08 at the rates provided in said letters of credit from 30 October 1982 until fully paid, but to the extent of not more than P8,000,000.00 in the case of defendant Chester Babst; 5) Ordering appellant Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and defendant Chester Babst to pay, jointly and severally, appellee BPI interests at the legal rate on all interests and related charges already accrued but unpaid on said three (3) domestic letters of credit as of the date of the filing of this Complaint until full payment thereof and the plaintiffs lawyers fees in the nominal amount of P200,000.00; 6) Ordering appellant ELISCON to reimburse appellants Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and Chester Babst whatever amount they shall have paid in said Eliscons behalf particularly referring to the three (3) letters of credit as of 31 October 1982 and other related charges. No costs. SO ORDERED.[19] ELISCON filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the Court of Appeals which was, however, denied in a Resolution dated March 9, 1992.[20] Subsequently, ELISCON filed a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 104625, on the following grounds:

A. THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM PETITIONER ELISCON THE LATTERS OBLIGATION WITH COMMERCIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (CBTC) B. THERE WAS A VALID NOVATION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ELISCON AND BPI THERE BEING A PRIOR CONSENT TO AND APPROVAL BY BPI OF THE SUBSTITUTION BY DBP AS DEBTOR IN LIEU OF THE ORIGINAL DEBTOR, ELISCON, THEREBY RELEASING ELISCON FROM ITS OBLIGATION TO BPI. C. PACIFIC MULTI COMMERCIAL CORPORATION AND CHESTER BABST CANNOT LAWFULLY RECOVER FROM ELISCON WHATEVER AMOUNT THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY TO BPI AS SURETIES OF ELISCONS OBLIGATION TO BPI; THEIR CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DIRECTED AGAINST DBP AS THE NEWLY SUBSTITUTED DEBTOR IN PLACE OF ELISCON. D. THE DBP TAKEOVER OF THE ENTIRE ELISCON AMOUNTED TO AN ACT OF GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS A FORTUITOUS EVENT EXCULPATING ELISCON FROM FURTHER LIABILITIES TO RESPONDENT BPI. E. PETITIONER ELISCON SHOULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE TO PAY RESPONDENT BPI THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION.[21] BPI filed its Comment[22] raising the following arguments, to wit: 1. Respondent BPI is legally entitled to recover from ELISCON, MULTI and Babst the past due obligations with CBTC prior to the merger of BPI with CBTC. 2. BPI did not give its consent to the DBP take-over of ELISCON. Hence, no valid novation has been effected. 3. Express consent of creditor to substitution should be recorded in the books. 4. Petitioner Chester G. Babst and respondent MULTI are jointly and solidarily liable to BPI for the unpaid letters of credit of ELISCON. 5. The question of the liability of ELISCON to BPI has been clearly established. 6. Since MULTI and Chester G. Babst are guarantors of the debts incurred by ELISCON, they may recover from the latter what they may have paid for on account of that guaranty.

Chester Babst filed a Comment with Manifestation,[23] wherein he contends that the suretyship agreement he executed with Antonio Roxas Chua was in favor of MULTI; and that there is nothing therein which authorizes MULTI, in turn, to guarantee the obligations of ELISCON. In its Comment,[24] MULTI maintained that inasmuch as BPI had full knowledge of the purpose of the meeting in June 1981, wherein the takeover by DBP of ELISCON was announced, it was incumbent upon the said bank to formally communicate its objection to the assumption of ELISCONs liabilities by DBP in answer to the call for the meeting. Moreover, there was no showing that the availment by ELISCON of MULTIs credit facilities with CBTC, which was supposedly guaranteed by Antonio Roxas Chua, was indeed authorized by the latter pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Directors of MULTI. In compliance with this Courts Resolution dated March 17, 1993,[25] the parties submitted their respective memoranda. Meanwhile, in a petition for review filed with this Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 99398, Chester Babst alleged that the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion when: 1. IT AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURTS HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO NOVATION INASMUCH AS RESPONDENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (OR BPI) HAD PRIOR CONSENT TO AND APPROVAL OF THE SUBSTITUTION AS DEBTOR BY THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (OR DBP) IN THE PLACE OF ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC. (OR ELISCON) IN THE LATTERS OBLIGATION TO BPI. 2. IT CONFIRMED THE LOWER COURTS CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO IMPLIED CONSENT OF THE CREDITOR BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO THE SUBSTITUTION BY DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES OF THE ORIGINAL DEBTOR ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED, INC. 3. IT AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURTS FINDING OF LACK OF MERIT OF THE CONTENTION OF ELISCON THAT THE FAILURE OF THE OFFICER OF BPI, WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE MEETING OF ELISCONS CREDITORS IN JUNE 1981 TO VOICE HIS OBJECTION TO THE ANNOUNCED TAKEOVER BY THE DBP OF THE ASSETS OF ELISCON AND ASSUMPTION OF ITS LIABILITIES, CONSTITUTED AN IMPLIED CONSENT TO THE ASSUMPTION BY DBP OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF ELISCON TO BPI.

4. IN NOT TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THE DBP TAKEOVER OF THE ENTIRE ELISCON WAS AN ACT OF GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTING A FORTUITOUS EVENT EXCULPATING ELISCON FROM ANY LIABILITY TO BPI. 5. IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DACION EN PAGO BETWEEN DBP AND BPI RELIEVED ELISCON, MULTI AND BABST OF ANY LIABILITY TO BPI. 6. IN FINDING THAT MULTI AND BABST BOUND THEMSELVES SOLIDARILY WITH ELISCON WITH RESPECT TO THE OBLIGATION INVOLVED HERE. 7. IN RENDERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF BPI AND AGAINST ELISCON ORDERING THE LATTER TO PAY THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE DECISION; AND ORDERING PETITIONER AND MULTI TO PAY SAID AMOUNTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY WITH ELISCON.[26] Petitioner Babst alleged that DBP sold all of ELISCONs assets to the National Development Company, for the latter to take over and continue the operation of its business. On September 11, 1981, the Board of Governors of the DBP adopted Resolution No. 2817 which states that DBP shall enter into a contractual arrangement with NDC for the latter to pay ELISCONs creditors, including BPI in the amount of P4,015,534.54. This was followed by a Memorandum of Agreement executed on May 4, 1983 by and between DBP and NDC, wherein they stipulated, inter alia, that NDC shall pay to ELISCONs creditors, through DBP, the amount of P299,524,700.00. Among the creditors mentioned in the agreement was BPI, with a listed credit of P4,015,534.54. Furthermore, petitioner Babst averred that the assets of ELISCON which were acquired by the DBP, and later transferred to the NDC, were placed under the Asset Privatization Trust pursuant to Proclamation No. 50, issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino on December 8, 1986. In its Comment,[27] BPI countered that by virtue of its merger with CBTC, it acquired all the latters rights and interest including all receivables; that in order to effect a valid novation by substitution of debtors, the consent of the creditor must be express; that in addition, the consent of BPI must appear in its books, it being a private corporation; that BPI intentionally did not consent to the assumption by DBP of the obligations of ELISCON because it wanted to preserve intact its causes of action and legal recourse against Pacific Multi-Commercial Corporation and Babst as sureties of ELISCON and not of DBP; that MULTI expressly bound itself solidarily for ELISCONs obligations to CBTC in its Resolution wherein it allowed the latter to use its credit facilities; and that the suretyship agreement executed by Babst does not exclude liabilities incurred by MULTI on behalf of third parties, such as ELISCON.

ELISCON likewise filed a Comment,[28] wherein it manifested that of the seven errors raised by Babst in his petition, six are arguments which ELISCON itself raised in its previous pleadings. It is only the sixth assigned error --- that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that MULTI and Babst bound themselves solidarily with ELISCON --- that ELISCON takes exception to. More particularly, ELISCON pointed out the contradictory positions taken by Babst in admitting that he bound himself to pay the indebtedness of MULTI, while at the same time completely disavowing and denying any such obligation. It stressed that should MULTI or Babst be finally adjudged liable under the suretyship agreement, they cannot lawfully recover from ELISCON, but from the DBP which had been substituted as the new debtor. MULTI filed its Comment,[29] admitting the correctness of the petition and adopting the Comment of ELISCON insofar as it is not inconsistent with the positions of Babst and MULTI. At the outset, the preliminary issue of BPIs right of action must first be addressed. ELISCON and MULTI assail BPIs legal capacity to recover their obligation to CBTC. However, there is no question that there was a valid merger between BPI and CBTC. It is settled that in the merger of two existing corporations, one of the corporations survives and continues the business, while the other is dissolved and all its rights, properties and liabilities are acquired by the surviving corporation.[30] Hence, BPI has a right to institute the case a quo. We now come to the primordial issue in this case whether or not BPI consented to the assumption by DBP of the obligations of ELISCON. Article 1293 of the Civil Code provides: Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, may be made even without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor. Payment by the new debtor gives him the rights mentioned in articles 1236 and 1237. BPI contends that in order to have a valid novation, there must be an express consent of the creditor. In the case of Testate Estate of Mota, et al. v. Serra,[31] this Court held: It should be noted that in order to give novation its legal effect, the law requires that the creditor should consent to the substitution of a new debtor. This consent must be given expressly for the reason that, since novation extinguishes the personality of the first debtor who is to be substituted by a new one, it implies on the part of the creditor a waiver of the right that he had before the novation, which waiver must be express

under the principle of renuntiatio non prsumitur, recognized by the law in declaring that a waiver of right may not be performed [should read: presumed] unless the will to waive is indisputably shown by him who holds the right.[32] The import of the foregoing ruling, however, was explained and clarified by this Court in the later case of Asia Banking Corporation v. Elser[33] in this wise: The aforecited article 1205 [now 1293] of the Civil Code does not state that the creditors consent to the substitution of the new debtor for the old be express, or given at the time of the substitution, and the Supreme Court of Spain, in its judgment of June 16, 1908, construing said article, laid down the doctrine that article 1205 of the Civil Code does not mean or require that the creditors consent to the change of debtors must be given simultaneously with the debtors consent to the substitution, its evident purpose being to preserve the creditors full right, it is sufficient that the latters consent be given at any time and in any form whatever, while the agreement of the debtors subsists. The same rule is stated in the Enciclopedia Jurdica Espaola, volume 23, page 503, which reads: The rule that this kind of novation, like all others, must be express, is not absolute; for the existence of the consent may well be inferred from the acts of the creditor, since volition may as well be expressed by deeds as by words. The understanding between Henry W. Elser and the principal director of Yangco, Rosenstock & Co., Inc., with respect to Luis R. Yangcos stock in said corporation, and the acts of the board of directors after Henry W. Elser had acquired said shares, in substituting the latter for Luis R. Yangco, are a clear and unmistakable expression of its consent. When this court said in the case of Estate of Mota vs. Serra (47 Phil., 464), that the creditors express consent is necessary in order that there may be a novation of a contract by the substitution of debtors, it did not wish to convey the impression that the word express was to be given an unqualified meaning, as indicated in the authorities or cases, both Spanish and American, cited in said decision.[34] Subsequently, in the case of Vda. e Hijos de Pio Barretto y Ca., Inc. v. Albo & Sevilla, Inc., et al.,[35] this Court reiterated the rule that there can be implied consent of the creditor to the substitution of debtors. In the case at bar, Babst, MULTI and ELISCON all maintain that due to the failure of BPI to register its objection to the take-over by DBP of ELISCONs assets, at the creditors meeting held in June 1981 and thereafter, it is deemed to have consented to the substitution of DBP for ELISCON as debtor. We find merit in the argument. Indeed, there exist clear indications that BPI was aware of the assumption by DBP of the obligations of ELISCON. In fact, BPI admits that ---

the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), for a time, had proposed a formula for the settlement of Eliscons past obligations to its creditors, including the plaintiff [BPI], but the formula was expressly rejected by the plaintiff as not acceptable (long before the filing of the complaint at bar).[36] The Court of Appeals held that even if the account officer who attended the June 1981 creditors meeting had expressed consent to the assumption by DBP of ELISCONs debts, such consent would not bind BPI for lack of a specific authority therefor. In its petition, ELISCON counters that the mere presence of the account officer at the meeting necessarily meant that he was authorized to represent BPI in that creditors meeting. Moreover, BPI did not object to the substitution of debtors, although it objected to the payment formula submitted by DBP. Indeed, the authority granted by BPI to its account officer to attend the creditors meeting was an authority to represent the bank, such that when he failed to object to the substitution of debtors, he did so on behalf of and for the bank. Even granting arguendo that the said account officer was not so empowered, BPI could have subsequently registered its objection to the substitution, especially after it had already learned that DBP had taken over the assets and assumed the liabilities of ELISCON. Its failure to do so can only mean an acquiescence in the assumption by DBP of ELISCONs obligations. As repeatedly pointed out by ELISCON and MULTI, BPIs objection was to the proposed payment formula, not to the substitution itself. BPI gives no cogent reason in withholding its consent to the substitution, other than its desire to preserve its causes of action and legal recourse against the sureties of ELISCON. It must be remembered, however, that while a surety is solidarily liable with the principal debtor, his obligation to pay only arises upon the principal debtors failure or refusal to pay. A contract of surety is an accessory promise by which a person binds himself for another already bound, and agrees with the creditor to satisfy the obligation if the debtor does not.[37] A surety is an insurer of the debt; he promises to pay the principals debt if the principal will not pay.[38] In the case at bar, there was no indication that the principal debtor will default in payment. In fact, DBP, which had stepped into the shoes of ELISCON, was capable of payment. Its authorized capital stock was increased by the government.[39] More importantly, the National Development Company took over the business of ELISCON and undertook to pay ELISCONs creditors, and earmarked for that purpose the amount of P4,015,534.54 for payment to BPI.[40] Notwithstanding the fact that a reliable institution backed by government funds was offering to pay ELISCONs debts, not as mere surety but as substitute principal debtor, BPI, for reasons known only to itself, insisted in going after the sureties. The

course of action chosen taxes the credulity of this Court. At the very least, suffice it to state that BPIs actuation in this regard runs counter to the good faith covenant in contractual relations, provided for by the Civil Code, to wit: ART. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. ART. 1159. Obligations arising from contract have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. BPIs conduct evinced a clear and unmistakable consent to the substitution of DBP for ELISCON as debtor. Hence, there was a valid novation which resulted in the release of ELISCON from its obligation to BPI, whose cause of action should be directed against DBP as the new debtor. Novation, in its broad concept, may either be extinctive or modificatory. It is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated by the creation of a new obligation that takes the place of the former; it is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement. An extinctive novation results either by changing the object or principal conditions (objective or real), or by substituting the person of the debtor or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor (subjective or personal). Under this mode, novation would have dual functions one to extinguish an existing obligation, the other to substitute a new one in its place requiring a conflux of four essential requisites, (1) a previous valid obligation; (2) an agreement of all parties concerned to a new contract; (3) the extinguishment of the old obligation; and (4) the birth of a valid new obligation.[41] The original obligation having been extinguished, the contracts of suretyship executed separately by Babst and MULTI, being accessory obligations, are likewise extinguished.[42] Hence, BPI should enforce its cause of action against DBP. It should be stressed that notwithstanding the lapse of time within which these cases have remained pending, the prescriptive period for BPI to file its action was interrupted when it filed Civil Case No. 49226.[43] WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are GRANTED. The appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals, which held ELISCON, MULTI and Babst solidarily liable for payment to BPI of the promissory note and letters of credit, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. BPIs complaint against ELISCON, MULTI and Babst is DISMISSED.SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 126490 March 31, 1998 ESTRELLA PALMARES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and M.B. LENDING CORPORATION, respondents.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties submitted the following issues for the resolution of the trial court: (1) what the rate of interest, penalty and damages should be; (2) whether the liability of the defendant (herein petitioner) is primary or subsidiary; and (3) whether the defendant Estrella Palmares is only a guarantor with a subsidiary liability and not a co-maker with primary liability. 5 Thereafter, the parties agreed to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings filed and the memoranda to be submitted by them. On November 26, 1992, the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to the filing of a separate action for a sum of money against the spouses Osmea and Merlyn Azarraga who are primarily liable on the instrument. 6 This was based on the findings of the court a quo that the filing of the complaint against herein petitioner Estrella Palmares, to the exclusion of the Azarraga spouses, amounted to a discharge of a prior party; that the offer made by petitioner to pay the obligation is considered a valid tender of payment sufficient to discharge a person's secondary liability on the instrument; as co-maker, is only secondarily liable on the instrument; and that the promissory note is a contract of adhesion. Respondent Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision of the trial court, and rendered judgment declaring herein petitioner Palmares liable to pay respondent corporation: 1. The sum of P13,700.00 representing the outstanding balance still due and owing with interest at six percent (6%) per month computed from the date the loan was contracted until fully paid; 2. The sum equivalent to the stipulated penalty of three percent (3%) per month, of the outstanding balance; 3. Attorney's fees at 25% of the total amount due per stipulations; 4. Plus costs of suit. 7 Contrary to the findings of the trial court, respondent appellate court declared that petitioner Palmares is a surety since she bound herself to be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the principal debtors, the Azarraga spouses, when she signed as a co-maker. As such, petitioner is primarily liable on the note and hence may be sued by the creditor corporation for the entire obligation. It also adverted to the fact that petitioner admitted her liability in her Answer although she claims that the Azarraga spouses should have been impleaded. Respondent court ordered the imposition of the stipulated 6% interest and 3% penalty charges on the ground that the Usury Law

REGALADO, J.: Where a party signs a promissory note as a co-maker and binds herself to be jointly and severally liable with the principal debtor in case the latter defaults in the payment of the loan, is such undertaking of the former deemed to be that of a surety as an insurer of the debt, or of a guarantor who warrants the solvency of the debtor? Pursuant to a promissory note dated March 13, 1990, private respondent M.B. Lending Corporation extended a loan to the spouses Osmea and Merlyn Azarraga, together with petitioner Estrella Palmares, in the amount of P30,000.00 payable on or before May 12, 1990, with compounded interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be computed every 30 days from the date thereof. 1 On four occasions after the execution of the promissory note and even after the loan matured, petitioner and the Azarraga spouses were able to pay a total of P16,300.00, thereby leaving a balance of P13,700.00. No payments were made after the last payment on September 26, 1991. 2 Consequently, on the basis of petitioner's solidary liability under the promissory note, respondent corporation filed a complaint 3 against petitioner Palmares as the lone party-defendant, to the exclusion of the principal debtors, allegedly by reason of the insolvency of the latter. In her Amended Answer with Counterclaim, 4 petitioner alleged that sometime in August 1990, immediately after the loan matured, she offered to settle the obligation with respondent corporation but the latter informed her that they would try to collect from the spouses Azarraga and that she need not worry about it; that there has already been a partial payment in the amount of P17,010.00; that the interest of 6% per month compounded at the same rate per month, as well as the penalty charges of 3% per month, are usurious and unconscionable; and that while she agrees to be liable on the note but only upon default of the principal debtor, respondent corporation acted in bad faith in suing her alone without including the Azarragas when they were the only ones who benefited from the proceeds of the loan.

is no longer enforceable pursuant to Central Bank Circular No. 905. Finally, it rationalized that even if the promissory note were to be considered as a contract of adhesion, the same is not entirely prohibited because the one who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. Hence this petition for review on certiorari wherein it is asserted that: A. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Palmares acted as surety and is therefore solidarily liable to pay the promissory note. 1. The terms of the promissory note are vague. Its conflicting provisions do not establish Palmares' solidary liability. 2. The promissory note contains provisions which establish the co-maker's liability as that of a guarantor. 3. There is no sufficient basis for concluding that Palmares' liability is solidary. 4. The promissory note is a contract of adhesion and should be construed against M. B. Lending Corporation. 5. Palmares cannot be compelled to pay the loan at this point. B. Assuming that Palmares' liability is solidary, the Court of Appeals erred in strictly imposing the interests and penalty charges on the outstanding balance of the promissory note. The foregoing contentions of petitioner are denied and contradicted in their material points by respondent corporation. They are further refuted by accepted doctrines in the American jurisdiction after which we patterned our statutory law on surety and guaranty. This case then affords us the opportunity to make an extended exposition on the ramifications of these two specialized contracts, for such guidance as may be taken therefrom in similar local controversies in the future. The basis of petitioner Palmares' liability under the promissory note is expressed in this wise: ATTENTION TO CO-MAKERS: PLEASE READ WELL

I, Mrs. Estrella Palmares, as the Co-maker of the above-quoted loan, have fully understood the contents of this Promissory Note for Short-Term Loan: That as Co-maker, I am fully aware that I shall be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the above principal maker of this note; That in fact, I hereby agree that M.B. LENDING CORPORATION may demand payment of the above loan from me in case the principal maker, Mrs. Merlyn Azarraga defaults in the payment of the note subject to the same conditions above-contained. 8 Petitioner contends that the provisions of the second and third paragraph are conflicting in that while the second paragraph seems to define her liability as that of a surety which is joint and solidary with the principal maker, on the other hand, under the third paragraph her liability is actually that of a mere guarantor because she bound herself to fulfill the obligation only in case the principal debtor should fail to do so, which is the essence of a contract of guaranty. More simply stated, although the second paragraph says that she is liable as a surety, the third paragraph defines the nature of her liability as that of a guarantor. According to petitioner, these are two conflicting provisions in the promissory note and the rule is that clauses in the contract should be interpreted in relation to one another and not by parts. In other words, the second paragraph should not be taken in isolation, but should be read in relation to the third paragraph. In an attempt to reconcile the supposed conflict between the two provisions, petitioner avers that she could be held liable only as a guarantor for several reasons. First, the words "jointly and severally or solidarily liable" used in the second paragraph are technical and legal terms which are not fully appreciated by an ordinary layman like herein petitioner, a 65-year old housewife who is likely to enter into such transactions without fully realizing the nature and extent of her liability. On the contrary, the wordings used in the third paragraph are easier to comprehend. Second, the law looks upon the contract of suretyship with a jealous eye and the rule is that the obligation of the surety cannot be extended by implication beyond specified limits, taking into consideration the peculiar nature of a surety agreement which holds the surety liable despite the absence of any direct consideration received from either the principal obligor or the creditor. Third, the promissory note is a contract of adhesion since it was prepared by respondent M.B. Lending Corporation. The note was brought to petitioner partially filled up, the contents thereof were never explained to her, and her only participation was to sign thereon. Thus, any apparent ambiguity in the contract should be strictly construed against private respondent pursuant to Art. 1377 of the Civil Code. 9

Petitioner accordingly concludes that her liability should be deemed restricted by the clause in the third paragraph of the promissory note to be that of a guarantor. Moreover, petitioner submits that she cannot as yet be compelled to pay the loan because the principal debtors cannot be considered in default in the absence of a judicial or extrajudicial demand. It is true that the complaint alleges the fact of demand, but the purported demand letters were never attached to the pleadings filed by private respondent before the trial court. And, while petitioner may have admitted in her Amended Answer that she received a demand letter from respondent corporation sometime in 1990, the same did not effectively put her or the principal debtors in default for the simple reason that the latter subsequently made a partial payment on the loan in September, 1991, a fact which was never controverted by herein private respondent. Finally, it is argued that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in awarding the amount of P2,745,483.39 in favor of private respondent when, in truth and in fact, the outstanding balance of the loan is only P13,700.00. Where the interest charged on the loan is exorbitant, iniquitous or unconscionable, and the obligation has been partially complied with, the court may equitably reduce the penalty 10 on grounds of substantial justice. More importantly, respondent corporation never refuted petitioner's allegation that immediately after the loan matured, she informed said respondent of her desire to settle the obligation. The court should, therefore, mitigate the damages to be paid since petitioner has shown a sincere desire for a compromise. 11 After a judicious evaluation of the arguments of the parties, we are constrained to dismiss the petition for lack of merit, but to except therefrom the issue anent the propriety of the monetary award adjudged to herein respondent corporation. At the outset, let it here be stressed that even assuming arguendo that the promissory note executed between the parties is a contract of adhesion, it has been the consistent holding of the Court that contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se and that on numerous occasions the binding effects thereof have been upheld. The peculiar nature of such contracts necessitate a close scrutiny of the factual milieu to which the provisions are intended to apply. Hence, just as consistently and unhesitatingly, but without categorically invalidating such contracts, the Court has construed obscurities and ambiguities in the restrictive provisions of contracts of adhesion strictly albeit not unreasonably against the drafter thereof when justified in light of the operative facts and surrounding circumstances. 12 The factual scenario obtaining in the case before us warrants a liberal application of the rule in favor of respondent corporation.

The Civil Code pertinently provides: Art. 2047. By guaranty, a person called the guarantor binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such case the contract is called a suretyship. It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control. 13 In the case at bar, petitioner expressly bound herself to be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the principal maker of the note. The terms of the contract are clear, explicit and unequivocal that petitioner's liability is that of a surety. Her pretension that the terms "jointly and severally or solidarily liable" contained in the second paragraph of her contract are technical and legal terms which could not be easily understood by an ordinary layman like her is diametrically opposed to her manifestation in the contract that she "fully understood the contents" of the promissory note and that she is "fully aware" of her solidary liability with the principal maker. Petitioner admits that she voluntarily affixed her signature thereto; ergo, she cannot now be heard to claim otherwise. Any reference to the existence of fraud is unavailing. Fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate. Petitioner's attempt to prove fraud must, therefore, fail as it was evidenced only by her own uncorroborated and, expectedly, self-serving allegations. 14 Having entered into the contract with full knowledge of its terms and conditions, petitioner is estopped to assert that she did so under a misapprehension or in ignorance of their legal effect, or as to the legal effect of the undertaking. 15 The rule that ignorance of the contents of an instrument does not ordinarily affect the liability of one who signs it also applies to contracts of suretyship. And the mistake of a surety as to the legal effect of her obligation is ordinarily no reason for relieving her of liability. 16 Petitioner would like to make capital of the fact that although she obligated herself to be jointly and severally liable with the principal maker, her liability is deemed restricted by the provisions of the third paragraph of her contract wherein she agreed "that M.B. Lending Corporation may demand payment of the above loan from me in case the principal maker, Mrs. Merlyn Azarraga defaults in the payment of the note,"

which makes her contract one of guaranty and not suretyship. The purported discordance is more apparent than real. A surety is an insurer of the debt, whereas a guarantor is an insurer of the solvency of the debtor. 17 A suretyship is an undertaking that the debt shall be paid; a guaranty, an undertaking that the debtor shall pay. 18 Stated differently, a surety promises to pay the principal's debt if the principal will not pay, while a guarantor agrees that the creditor, after proceeding against the principal, may proceed against the guarantor if the principal is unable to pay. 19 A surety binds himself to perform if the principal does not, without regard to his ability to do so. A guarantor, on the other hand, does not contract that the principal will pay, but simply that he is able to do so. 20 In other words, a surety undertakes directly for the payment and is so responsible at once if the principal debtor makes default, while a guarantor contracts to pay if, by the use of due diligence, the debt cannot be made out of the principal debtor. 21 Quintessentially, the undertaking to pay upon default of the principal debtor does not automatically remove it from the ambit of a contract of suretyship. The second and third paragraphs of the aforequoted portion of the promissory note do not contain any other condition for the enforcement of respondent corporation's right against petitioner. It has not been shown, either in the contract or the pleadings, that respondent corporation agreed to proceed against herein petitioner only if and when the defaulting principal has become insolvent. A contract of suretyship, to repeat, is that wherein one lends his credit by joining in the principal debtor's obligation, so as to render himself directly and primarily responsible with him, and without reference to the solvency of the principal. 22 In a desperate effort to exonerate herself from liability, petitioner erroneously invokes the rule on strictissimi juris, which holds that when the meaning of a contract of indemnity or guaranty has once been judicially determined under the rule of reasonable construction applicable to all written contracts, then the liability of the surety, under his contract, as thus interpreted and construed, is not to be extended beyond its strict meaning. 23 The rule, however, will apply only after it has been definitely ascertained that the contract is one of suretyship and not a contract of guaranty. It cannot be used as an aid in determining whether a party's undertaking is that of a surety or a guarantor. Prescinding from these jurisprudential authorities, there can be no doubt that the stipulation contained in the third paragraph of the controverted suretyship contract merely elucidated on and made more specific the obligation of petitioner as generally defined in the second paragraph thereof. Resultantly, the theory advanced by petitioner, that she is merely a guarantor because her liability attaches only upon

default of the principal debtor, must necessarily fail for being incongruent with the judicial pronouncements adverted to above. It is a well-entrenched rule that in order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall also be principally considered. 24 Several attendant factors in that genre lend support to our finding that petitioner is a surety. For one, when petitioner was informed about the failure of the principal debtor to pay the loan, she immediately offered to settle the account with respondent corporation. Obviously, in her mind, she knew that she was directly and primarily liable upon default of her principal. For another, and this is most revealing, petitioner presented the receipts of the payments already made, from the time of initial payment up to the last, which were all issued in her name and of the Azarraga spouses. 25 This can only be construed to mean that the payments made by the principal debtors were considered by respondent corporation as creditable directly upon the account and inuring to the benefit of petitioner. The concomitant and simultaneous compliance of petitioner's obligation with that of her principals only goes to show that, from the very start, petitioner considered herself equally bound by the contract of the principal makers. In this regard, we need only to reiterate the rule that a surety is bound equally and absolutely with the principal, 26 and as such is deemed an original promisor and debtor from the beginning. 27 This is because in suretyship there is but one contract, and the surety is bound by the same agreement which binds the principal. 28 In essence, the contract of a surety starts with the agreement, 29 which is precisely the situation obtaining in this case before the Court. It will further be observed that petitioner's undertaking as co-maker immediately follows the terms and conditions stipulated between respondent corporation, as creditor, and the principal obligors. A surety is usually bound with his principal by the same instrument, executed at the same time and upon the same consideration; he is an original debtor, and his liability is immediate and direct. 30 Thus, it has been held that where a written agreement on the same sheet of paper with and immediately following the principal contract between the buyer and seller is executed simultaneously therewith, providing that the signers of the agreement agreed to the terms of the principal contract, the signers were "sureties" jointly liable with the buyer. 31 A surety usually enters into the same obligation as that of his principal, and the signatures of both usually appear upon the same instrument, and the same consideration usually supports the obligation for both the principal and the surety. 32 There is no merit in petitioner's contention that the complaint was prematurely filed because the principal debtors cannot as yet be considered in default, there having been no judicial or extrajudicial demand made by respondent corporation. Petitioner

has agreed that respondent corporation may demand payment of the loan from her in case the principal maker defaults, subject to the same conditions expressed in the promissory note. Significantly, paragraph (G) of the note states that "should I fail to pay in accordance with the above schedule of payment, I hereby waive my right to notice and demand." Hence, demand by the creditor is no longer necessary in order that delay may exist since the contract itself already expressly so declares. 33 As a surety, petitioner is equally bound by such waiver. Even if it were otherwise, demand on the sureties is not necessary before bringing suit against them, since the commencement of the suit is a sufficient demand. 34 On this point, it may be worth mentioning that a surety is not even entitled, as a matter of right, to be given notice of the principal's default. Inasmuch as the creditor owes no duty of active diligence to take care of the interest of the surety, his mere failure to voluntarily give information to the surety of the default of the principal cannot have the effect of discharging the surety. The surety is bound to take notice of the principal's default and to perform the obligation. He cannot complain that the creditor has not notified him in the absence of a special agreement to that effect in the contract of suretyship.
35

creditor has the right to proceed even against the surety alone. 40 Since, generally, it is not necessary for the creditor to proceed against a principal in order to hold the surety liable, where, by the terms of the contract, the obligation of the surety is the same that of the principal, then soon as the principal is in default, the surety is likewise in default, and may be sued immediately and before any proceedings are had against the principal. 41 Perforce, in accordance with the rule that, in the absence of statute or agreement otherwise, a surety is primarily liable, and with the rule that his proper remedy is to pay the debt and pursue the principal for reimbursement, the surety cannot at law, unless permitted by statute and in the absence of any agreement limiting the application of the security, require the creditor or obligee, before proceeding against the surety, to resort to and exhaust his remedies against the principal, particularly where both principal and surety are equally bound. 42 We agree with respondent corporation that its mere failure to immediately sue petitioner on her obligation does not release her from liability. Where a creditor refrains from proceeding against the principal, the surety is not exonerated. In other words, mere want of diligence or forbearance does not affect the creditor's rights visa-vis the surety, unless the surety requires him by appropriate notice to sue on the obligation. Such gratuitous indulgence of the principal does not discharge the surety whether given at the principal's request or without it, and whether it is yielded by the creditor through sympathy or from an inclination to favor the principal, or is only the result of passiveness. The neglect of the creditor to sue the principal at the time the debt falls due does not discharge the surety, even if such delay continues until the principal becomes insolvent. 43 And, in the absence of proof of resultant injury, a surety is not discharged by the creditor's mere statement that the creditor will not look to the surety, 44 or that he need not trouble himself. 45 The consequences of the delay, such as the subsequent insolvency of the principal, 46 or the fact that the remedies against the principal may be lost by lapse of time, are immaterial. 47 The raison d'tre for the rule is that there is nothing to prevent the creditor from proceeding against the principal at any time. 48 At any rate, if the surety is dissatisfied with the degree of activity displayed by the creditor in the pursuit of his principal, he may pay the debt himself and become subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the creditor. 49 It may not be amiss to add that leniency shown to a debtor in default, by delay permitted by the creditor without change in the time when the debt might be demanded, does not constitute an extension of the time of payment, which would release the surety. 50 In order to constitute an extension discharging the surety, it should appear that the extension was for a definite period, pursuant to an enforceable agreement between the principal and the creditor, and that it was made without the consent of the surety or with a reservation of rights with respect to him. The contract

The alleged failure of respondent corporation to prove the fact of demand on the principal debtors, by not attaching copies thereof to its pleadings, is likewise immaterial. In the absence of a statutory or contractual requirement, it is not necessary that payment or performance of his obligation be first demanded of the principal, especially where demand would have been useless; nor is it a requisite, before proceeding against the sureties, that the principal be called on to account. 36 The underlying principle therefor is that a suretyship is a direct contract to pay the debt of another. A surety is liable as much as his principal is liable, and absolutely liable as soon as default is made, without any demand upon the principal whatsoever or any notice of default. 37 As an original promisor and debtor from the beginning, he is held ordinarily to know every default of his principal. 38 Petitioner questions the propriety of the filing of a complaint solely against her to the exclusion of the principal debtors who allegedly were the only ones who benefited from the proceeds of the loan. What petitioner is trying to imply is that the creditor, herein respondent corporation, should have proceeded first against the principal before suing on her obligation as surety. We disagree. A creditor's right to proceed against the surety exists independently of his right to proceed against the principal. 39 Under Article 1216 of the Civil Code, the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The rule, therefore, is that if the obligation is joint and several, the

must be one which precludes the creditor from, or at least hinders him in, enforcing the principal contract within the period during which he could otherwise have enforced it, and which precludes the surety from paying the debt. 51 None of these elements are present in the instant case. Verily, the mere fact that respondent corporation gave the principal debtors an extended period of time within which to comply with their obligation did not effectively absolve here in petitioner from the consequences of her undertaking. Besides, the burden is on the surety, herein petitioner, to show that she has been discharged by some act of the creditor, 52 herein respondent corporation, failing in which we cannot grant the relief prayed for. As a final issue, petitioner claims that assuming that her liability is solidary, the interests and penalty charges on the outstanding balance of the loan cannot be imposed for being illegal and unconscionable. Petitioner additionally theorizes that respondent corporation intentionally delayed the collection of the loan in order that the interests and penalty charges would accumulate. The statement, likewise traversed by said respondent, is misleading. In an affidavit 53 executed by petitioner, which was attached to her petition, she stated, among others, that: 8. During the latter part of 1990, I was surprised to learn that Merlyn Azarraga's loan has been released and that she has not paid the same upon its maturity. I received a telephone call from Mr. Augusto Banusing of MB Lending informing me of this fact and of my liability arising from the promissory note which I signed. 9. I requested Mr. Banusing to try to collect first from Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga. At the same time, I offered to pay MB Lending the outstanding balance of the principal obligation should he fail to collect from Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga. Mr. Banusing advised me not to worry because he will try to collect first from Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga. 10. A year thereafter, I received a telephone call from the secretary of Mr. Banusing who reminded that the loan of Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga, together with interest and penalties thereon, has not been paid. Since I had no available funds at that time, I offered to pay MB Lending by delivering to them a parcel of land which I own. Mr. Banusing's secretary, however, refused my offer for the reason that they are not interested in real estate. 11. In March 1992, I received a copy of the summons and of the complaint filed against me by MB Lending before the RTC-Iloilo. After learning that a

complaint was filed against me, I instructed Sheila Gatia to go to MB Lending and reiterate my first offer to pay the outstanding balance of the principal obligation of Merlyn Azarraga in the amount of P30,000.00. 12. Ms. Gatia talked to the secretary of Mr. Banusing who referred her to Atty. Venus, counsel of MB Lending. 13. Atty. Venus informed Ms. Gatia that he will consult Mr. Banusing if my offer to pay the outstanding balance of the principal obligation loan (sic) of Merlyn and Osmea Azarraga is acceptable. Later, Atty. Venus informed Ms. Gatia that my offer is not acceptable to Mr. Banusing. The purported offer to pay made by petitioner can not be deemed sufficient and substantial in order to effectively discharge her from liability. There are a number of circumstances which conjointly inveigh against her aforesaid theory. 1. Respondent corporation cannot be faulted for not immediately demanding payment from petitioner. It was petitioner who initially requested that the creditor try to collect from her principal first, and she offered to pay only in case the creditor fails to collect. The delay, if any, was occasioned by the fact that respondent corporation merely acquiesced to the request of petitioner. At any rate, there was here no actual offer of payment to speak of but only a commitment to pay if the principal does not pay. 2. Petitioner made a second attempt to settle the obligation by offering a parcel of land which she owned. Respondent corporation was acting well within its rights when it refused to accept the offer. The debtor of a thing cannot compel the creditor to receive a different one, although the latter may be of the same value, or more valuable than that which is due. 54 The obligee is entitled to demand fulfillment of the obligation or performance as stipulated. A change of the object of the obligation would constitute novation requiring the express consent of the parties. 55 3. After the complaint was filed against her, petitioner reiterated her offer to pay the outstanding balance of the obligation in the amount of P30,000.00 but the same was likewise rejected. Again, respondent corporation cannot be blamed for refusing the amount being offered because it fell way below the amount it had computed, based on the stipulated interests and penalty charges, as owing and due from herein petitioner. A debt shall not be understood to have been paid unless the thing or service in which the obligation consists has been completely delivered or rendered, as the case may be. 56 In other words, the prestation must be fulfilled completely. A person entering into a contract has a right to insist on its performance in all particulars. 57

Petitioner cannot compel respondent corporation to accept the amount she is willing to pay because the moment the latter accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness or irregularity, and without expressing any protest or objection, then the obligation shall be deemed fully complied with. 58 Precisely, this is what respondent corporation wanted to avoid when it continually refused to settle with petitioner at less than what was actually due under their contract. This notwithstanding, however, we find and so hold that the penalty charge of 3% per month and attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the total amount due are highly inequitable and unreasonable. It must be remembered that from the principal loan of P30,000.00, the amount of P16,300.00 had already been paid even before the filing of the present case. Article 1229 of the Civil Code provides that the court shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. And, even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced if it is iniquitous or leonine. In a case previously decided by this Court which likewise involved private respondent M.B. Lending Corporation, and which is substantially on all fours with the one at bar, we decided to eliminate altogether the penalty interest for being excessive and unwarranted under the following rationalization: Upon the matter of penalty interest, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the economic impact of the penalty interest of three percent (3 %) per month on total amount due but unpaid should be equitably reduced. The purpose for which the penalty interest is intended that is, to punish the obligor will have been sufficiently served by the effects of compounded interest. Under the exceptional circumstances in the case at bar, e.g., the original amount loaned was only P15,000.00; partial payment of P8,600.00 was made on due date; and the heavy (albeit still lawful) regular compensatory interest, the penalty interest stipulated in the parties' promissory note is iniquitous and unconscionable and may be equitably reduced further by eliminating such penalty interest altogether. 59 Accordingly, the penalty interest of 3% per month being imposed on petitioner should similarly be eliminated. Finally, with respect to the award of attorney's fees, this Court has previously ruled that even with an agreement thereon between the parties, the court may nevertheless reduce such attorney's fees fixed in the contract when the amount thereof appears to be unconscionable or unreasonable. 60 To that end, it is not even necessary to show,

as in other contracts, that it is contrary to morals or public policy. 61 The grant of attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the total amount due is, in our opinion, unreasonable and immoderate, considering the minimal unpaid amount involved and the extent of the work involved in this simple action for collection of a sum of money. We, therefore, hold that the amount of P10,000.00 as and for attorney's fee would be sufficient in this case. 62 WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the penalty interest of 3% per month is hereby deleted and the award of attorney's fees is reduced to P10,000.00. SO ORDERED. Melo, Puno, Mendoza and Martinez, JJ., concur.

PACIONARIA C. BAYLON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Former Ninth Division) and LEONILA TOMACRUZ, respondents. DECISION GONZAGA-REYES, J.: This is a petition for review by way of certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No. 27779 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 88, dated June 14, 1990 in Civil Case No. Q-89-2483 and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated April 27, 1993 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The pertinent facts, as found by the trial court and affirmed by respondent court, are briefly narrated as follows: Sometime in 1986, petitioner Pacionaria C. Baylon introduced private respondent Leonila Tomacruz, the co-manager of her husband at PLDT, to Rosita B. Luanzon. Petitioner told private respondent that Luanzon has been engaged in business as a contractor for twenty years and she invited private respondent to lend Luanzon money at a monthly interest rate of five percent (5%), to be used as capital for the latter's business. Private respondent, persuaded by the assurances of petitioner that Luanzon's business was stable and by the high interest rate, agreed to lend Luanzon money in the amount of P150,000. On June 22, 1987, Luanzon issued and signed a promissory note acknowledging receipt of the P150,000 from private respondent and obliging herself to pay the former the said amount on or before August 22, 1987. Petitioner signed the promissory note, affixing her signature under the word "guarantor." Luanzon also issued a postdated Solidbank check no. CA418437 dated August 22, 1987 payable to Leonila Tomacruz in the amount of P150,000. Subsequently, Luanzon replaced this check with another postdated Solidbank check no. 432945 dated December 22, 1987, in favor of the same payee and covering the same amount. Several checks in the amount of P7,500 each were also issued by Luanzon and made payable to private respondent. Private respondent made a written demand upon petitioner for payment, which petitioner did not heed. Thus, on May 8, 1989, private respondent filed a case for the collection of a sum of money with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 88, against Luanzon and petitioner herein, impleading Mariano Baylon, husband of petitioner, as an additional defendant. However, summons was never served upon Luanzon.

In her answer, petitioner denied having guaranteed the payment of the promissory note issued by Luanzon. She claimed that private respondent gave Luanzon the money, not as a loan, but rather as an investment in Art Enterprises and Construction, Inc. - the construction business of Luanzon. Furthermore, petitioner avers that, granting arguendo that there was a loan and petitioner guaranteed the same, private respondent has not exhausted the property of the principal debtor nor has she resorted to all the legal remedies against the principal debtor as required by law. Finally, petitioner claims that there was an extension of the maturity date of the loan without her consent, thus releasing her from her obligation. After trial on the merits, the lower court ruled in favor of private respondent. In its Decision dated June 14, 1990, it stated that The evidence and the testimonies on record clearly established a (sic) fact that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants was a loan with five percent (5%) monthly interest and not an investment. In fact they all admitted in their testimonies that they are not given any stock certificate but only promissory notes similar to Exhibit B wherein it was clearly stated that defendant Luanzon would pay the amount of indebtedness on the date due. Postdated checks were issued simultaneously with the promissory notes to enable the plaintiff and others to withdraw their money on a certain fixed time. This shows that they were never participants in the business transaction of defendant Luanzon but were creditors. The evidences presented likewise show that plaintiff and others loan their money to defendant Luanzon because of the assurance of the monthly income of five percent (5%) of their money and that they could withdraw it anytime after the due date add to it the fact that their friend, Pacionaria Baylon, expresses her unequivocal gurarantee to the payment of the amount loaned. xxx xx xxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered against the defendants Pacionaria C. Baylon and Mariano Baylon, to pay the plaintiff the sum of P150,000.00, with interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until full payment thereof, to pay the total sum of P21,000.00 as attorneys fees and costs of suit. On appeal, the trial court's decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this present case wherein petitioner makes the following assignment of errors I. RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT TOMACRUZ WAS A CREDITOR OF DEFENDANT LUANZON AND

NOT AN INVESTOR IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS OF ART ENTERPRISES & CONSTRUCTION, INC. To Whom It May Concern: II. GRANTING, WITHOUT ADMITTING, THAT PETITIONER-APPELLANT BAYLON WAS A "GUARANTOR" AS APPEARING IN THE NOTE (EXH. "A") THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER-APPELLANT BAYLON IS LIABLE TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT BECAUSE THE LATTER HAS NOT TAKEN STEPS TO EXHAUST THE PROPERTY OF THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR AND HAS NOT RESORTED TO ALL THE LEGAL REMEDIES PROVIDED BY LAW AGAINST THE DEBTOR, DEFENDANT LUANZON. III. GRANTING, WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT PETITIONER-APPELLANT BAYLON WAS A GUARANTOR UNDER THAT NOTE (EXHIBIT "A") DATED JUNE 22, 1987, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RESOLVING THAT SHE WAS NOT RELEASED FROM HER GUARANTY BY THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AND DEFENDANT LUANZON. At the outset, we note that petitioners claim that the factual findings of the lower court, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were based on a misapprehension of facts and contradicted by the evidence on records is a bare allegation and devoid of merit. As a rule, the conclusions of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court. Although this rule admits of several exceptions, none of the exceptions are in point in the present case. The factual findings of the respondent court are borne out by the record and are based on substantial evidence. Petitioner claims that there is no loan to begin with; that private respondent gave Luanzon the amount of P150,000, not as a loan, but rather as an investment in the construction project of the latter. In support of her claim, petitioner cites the use by private respondent of the words investment, dividends, and commission in her testimony before the lower court; the fact that private respondent received monthly checks from Luanzon in the amount of P7,500 from July to December, 1987, representing dividends on her investment; and the fact that other employees of the Development Bank of the Philippines made similar investments in Luanzons construction business. However, all the circumstances mentioned by petitioner cannot override the clear and unequivocal terms of the June 22, 1987 promissory note whereby Luanzon promised to pay private respondent the amount of P150,000 on or before August 22, 1987. The promissory note states as follows:

June 22, 1987

For value received, I hereby promise to pay Mrs. LEONILA TOMACRUZ the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P150,000.00) on or before August 22, 1987. The above amount is covered by _____ Check No. _____ dated August 22, 1987. (signed) ROSITA B. LUANZON GURARANTOR: (signed) PACIONARIA O. BAYLON Tel. No. 801-28-00 18 P. Mapa St., DBP Village Almanza, Las Pinas, M.M. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control. Resort to extrinsic aids and other extraneous sources are not necessary in order to ascertain the parties' intent when there is no ambiguity in the terms of the agreement. Both petitioner and private respondent do not deny the due execution and authenticity of the June 22, 1987 promissory note. All of petitioner's arguments are directed at uncovering the real intention of the parties in executing the promissory note, but no amount of argumentation will change the plain import of the terms thereof, and accordingly, no attempt to read into it any alleged intention of the parties thereto may be justified. The clear terms of the promissory note establish a creditor-debtor relationship between Luanzon and private respondent. The transaction at bench is therefore a loan, not an investment. It is petitioner's contention that, even though she is held to be a guarantor under the terms of the promissory note, she is not liable because private respondent did not

exhaust the property of the principal debtor and has not resorted to all the legal remedies provided by the law against the debtor. Petitioner is invoking the benefit of excussion pursuant to article 2058 of the Civil Code, which provides that The guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor, and has resorted to all the legal remedies against the debtor. It is axiomatic that the liability of the guarantor is only subsidiary. All the properties of the principal debtor must first be exhausted before his own is levied upon. Thus, the creditor may hold the guarantor liable only after judgment has been obtained against the principal debtor and the latter is unable to pay, for obviously the exhaustion of the principals property - the benefit of which the guarantor claims - cannot even begin to take place before judgment has been obtained. This rule is embodied in article 2062 of the Civil Code which provides that the action brought by the creditor must be filed against the principal debtor alone, except in some instances when the action may be brought against both the debtor and the principal debtor. Under the circumstances availing in the present case, we hold that it is premature for this Court to even determine whether or not petitioner is liable as a guarantor and whether she is entitled to the concomitant rights as such, like the benefit of excussion, since the most basic prerequisite is wanting - that is, no judgment was first obtained against the principal debtor Rosita B. Luanzon. It is useless to speak of a guarantor when no debtor has been held liable for the obligation which is allegedly secured by such guarantee. Although the principal debtor Luanzon was impleaded as defendant, there is nothing in the records to show that summons was served upon her. Thus, the trial court never even acquired jurisdiction over the principal debtor. We hold that private respondent must first obtain a judgment against the principal debtor before assuming to run after the alleged guarantor. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is granted and the questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1991 and Resolution dated April 27, 1993 are SET ASIDE. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.