Nor does the record show any other transaction under which Inter-Resin Industrialmay have obtained sums of money from Interbank. It can reasonably be assumed thatInter-Resin Industrial and Willex Plastic intended to indemnify Interbank for amounts whichit 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 tosecure the aforesaid guarantee, that INTERBANK required principal debtor IRIC [Inter-Resin Industrial] to execute a chattel mortgage in its favor, and so a Continuing Guarantywas executed on April 2, 1979 by WILLEX PLASTIC INDUSTRIES CORPORATION(WILLEX for brevity) in favor of INTERBANK for and in consideration of the loan obtainedby IRIC [Inter-Resin Industrial]. Willex Plastic argues that the Continuing Guaranty, being an accessory contract,cannot legally exist because of the absence of a valid principal obligation.Its contentionis based on the fact that it is not a party either to the Continuing Surety Agreement or tothe loan agreement between Manilabank and Inter-Resin Industrial.Put in another way the consideration necessary to support a surety obligation need notpass directly to the surety, a consideration moving to the principal alone beingsufficient. For a guarantor or surety is bound by the same consideration that makes thecontract effective between the principal parties thereto. . . . It is never necessary that aguarantor or surety should receive any part or benefit, if such there be, accruing to hisprincipal.In an analogous case,this Court held:At the time the loan of P100,000.00 was obtained from petitioner by Daicor, for the purpose ofhaving an additional capital for buying and selling coco-shell charcoal and importation of activatedcarbon, 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 thepromissory note, is liable by virtue of the surety agreement. The only condition that would makehim liable thereunder is that the Borrower is or may become liable as maker, endorser, acceptor orotherwise. There is no doubt that Daicor is liable on the promissory note evidencing theindebtedness.The surety agreement which was earlier signed by Enrique Go, Sr. and private respondent, is anaccessory obligation, it being dependent upon a principal one which, in this case is the loanobtained by Daicor as evidenced by a promissory note. Willex Plastic contends that the Continuing Guaranty cannot be retroactivelyapplied so as to secure the payments made by Interbank under the two Continuing SuretyAgreements. Willex Plastic invokes the ruling m El Vencedor v. Canlasand Dio v. Courtof Appealsin support of its contention that a contract of suretyship or guaranty should beapplied prospectively.
The cases cited are, however, distinguishable from the present case. In El Vencedor v.