7 nor does the record show any other transaction

  • No School
  • AA 1
  • princessmay05
  • 63

This preview shows page 41 - 43 out of 63 pages.

[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.
Image of page 41
The cases cited are, however, distinguishable from the present case. In El Vencedor v.
Image of page 42
Image of page 43

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 63 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Aval, Surety, Sureties, Surety bond, Tort reform

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture