7 nor does the record show any other transaction

[7]
Nor does the record show any other transaction under which Inter-Resin Industrial
may have obtained sums of money from Interbank. It can reasonably be assumed that
Inter-Resin Industrial and Willex Plastic intended to indemnify Interbank for amounts which
it may have paid Manilabank on behalf of Inter-Resin Industrial.
Indeed, in its Petition for Review in this Court, Willex Plastic admitted that it was to
secure the aforesaid guarantee, that INTERBANK required principal debtor IRIC [Inter-
Resin Industrial] to execute a chattel mortgage in its favor, and so a Continuing Guaranty
was executed on April 2, 1979 by WILLEX PLASTIC INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
(WILLEX for brevity) in favor of INTERBANK for and in consideration of the loan obtained
by IRIC [Inter-Resin Industrial].
[2] Willex Plastic argues that the Continuing Guaranty, being an accessory contract,
cannot legally exist because of the absence of a valid principal obligation.
[8]
Its contention
is based on the fact that it is not a party either to the Continuing Surety Agreement or to
the loan agreement between Manilabank and Inter-Resin Industrial.
Put in another way the consideration necessary to support a surety obligation need not
pass directly to the surety, a consideration moving to the principal alone being
sufficient. For a guarantor or surety is bound by the same consideration that makes the
contract effective between the principal parties thereto. . . . It is never necessary that a
guarantor or surety should receive any part or benefit, if such there be, accruing to his
principal.
[9]
In an analogous case,
[10]
this Court held:
At the time the loan of P100,000.00 was obtained from petitioner by Daicor, for the purpose of
having an additional capital for buying and selling coco-shell charcoal and importation of activated
carbon, the comprehensive surety agreement was admittedly in full force and effect. The loan was,
therefore, covered by the said agreement, and private respondent, even if he did not sign the
promissory note, is liable by virtue of the surety agreement. The only condition that would make
him liable thereunder is that the Borrower is or may become liable as maker, endorser, acceptor or
otherwise. There is no doubt that Daicor is liable on the promissory note evidencing the
indebtedness.
The surety agreement which was earlier signed by Enrique Go, Sr. and private respondent, is an
accessory obligation, it being dependent upon a principal one which, in this case is the loan
obtained by Daicor as evidenced by a promissory note.
[3] Willex Plastic contends that the Continuing Guaranty cannot be retroactively
applied so as to secure the payments made by Interbank under the two Continuing Surety
Agreements. Willex Plastic invokes the ruling m El Vencedor v. Canlas
[11]
and Dio v. Court
of Appeals
[12]
in support of its contention that a contract of suretyship or guaranty should be
applied prospectively.

The cases cited are, however, distinguishable from the present case. In El Vencedor v.