000 ATOK FINANCE vs CA [G.R. NUMBER 80078; May 18, 1993 ] TOPIC: Suretyship
AUTOR: JP Villamor NOTES: (if applicable)
NATURE OF TE CA!E" FACT!" #$%&'(')'*+$a) '&-& O( /7 )y 1979, 2&+va- &-s2'(-(s !a(y C%-4+$a) C'&2'&a+'( as 2&+($+2a) a( !a(y !a(y T&a+(* &a+(* C'&2'& C'&2'&a+ a+'( '( a)'(* a)'(* 5+% 5+% +(+v+ +(+v+a a)) 2&+va 2&+va- s'$6 s'$6%') %')-&s &s ' !a(y !a(y C%-4+$a) as s&-+-s, --$- a C'(+(+(* !&-ys%+2 A*&--4-( +( av'& ' A'6 F+(a($- as $&-+'&. $&-+'&. I( 1981, !a(y C%-4+$a) ass+*(- +s &a- &-$-+va)-s 'sa(+(* 'sa(+(* ' A'6 F+(a($- +( $'(s $'(s+ +-& -&a a+' +'( ( ' &-$&-$-+2 +2 &'4 &'4 A'6 A'6 F+(a F+(a($ ($- ' %%- a4' a4'( ( ' P10: P10:,0 ,000 00.0 .00. 0. T%T%ass+*(- &-$-+va)-s $a&&+- a sa(a& -&4 ' %+&y #30 ays; + a22-a&-, %'5-v-&, %a %- sa(a& $'44-&$+a) 2&a$+$2&a$+$- 5as ' *&a( a( --(s+'( ' 2 ' '(- %(&- 5-(y #1/0 ays 5+%' 2-(a)+-s. I( 198, A'6 F+(a($- $'44-($- a$+'( a*a+(s !a(y C%-4+$a), %- A&&+-a s2's-s, s2's-s, Pa)+' Pa)+' B-&4(' B-&4(' a( <-'2')' <-'2')' a)+)+ -'&- %- R-*+'(a R-*+'(a)) T&+a) C'& C'& ' Ma(+)a Ma(+)a ' $'))-$ a s4 ' 4'(-y 2)s 2-(a)y $%a&*-s sa&+(* &'4 1 !-2-4-& 1983. A'6 F+(a($- a))-*- %a !a(y C%-4+$a) %a a+)- ' $'))-$ a( &-4+ %- a4'(s (-& %- &a- &-$-+va)-s. !a(y !a(y C%-4+$a) C%-4+$a) a( %- +(+v+ +(+v+a) a) 2&+va2&+va- &-s2'( &-s2'(-(s -(s s'*% +s4+ss +s4+ssa) a) ' A'6=s A'6=s $)a+4 2'( %- *&'( %a s$% $)a+4 %a 2&-s$&+- (-& A&+$)- 1>/9 ' %- C+v+) C'- a( '& )a$6 ' $as- ' a$+'(. T%- 2&+va- &-s2'(-(s $'(-(- %a %C'(+(+( C'(+(+(* * !&-ys% !&-ys%+2 +2 A*&--4-( A*&--4-(, , -+(* -+(* a( a$$-ss' a$$-ss'&y &y $'(&a$ $'(&a$,, 5as ()) a( v'+ s+($-, a %- +4- ' +s --$+'(, !a(y C%-4+$a) %a (' 2&-?-+s+(* ')+*a+'( ' A'6 F+(a($-. A-& &+a) %- &+a) $'& &-(-&- a -$+s+'( +( av'& ' A'6 F+(a($-. O( a22-a) %CA &-v-&s- a( s- as+- %- -$+s+'( ' %- &+a) $'& a( -(-&- a (-5 @*4-( +s4+ss+(* %- $'42)a+( ' A'6 F+(a($-.
*include the loer court and appellate decision and ratio if applicable *include as ell the respecti!e contentions" alle#ations of the petitioner(s) and respondent(s) I!!UE#!: $hether the indi!idual pri!ate respondents may be held solidarily liable ith Sanyu %hemical under the pro!isions of the %ontinuin# Suretyship &#reement' or hether that &#reement must be held null and !oid as ha!in# been eecuted ithout consideration and ithout a preeistin# principal obli#ation to sustain it $hether pri!ate respondents respondents are liable under the +eed of &ssi#nment hich they' alon# ith the principa principall debtor debtor Sanyu %hemical' %hemical' eecute eecuted d in fa!or of petitione petitioner' r' on the recei!ab recei!ables les thereby thereby assi#ned
E<: (,ES"NO' and a short eplanation) RATIO: <hou#h obli#ations obli#ations arisin# from contracts ha!e the force of la beteen the contractin# parties' (&rticle --./ of the %i!il %ode) this does not mean that the la is inferior to it0 the terms of the contract could not be enforced if not !alid So' e!en if' as in this case' the a#reement as for a continuin# suretyship suretyship to include obli#ations enumerated in the a#reement' the same could not be enforced 1irst' because this contract' 2ust li3e #uaranty' cannot eist ithout a !alid obli#ation
(&rt 45.4' %i!il %ode)0 and' second' althou#h it may be #i!en as security for future debt (&rt 45.6' %%)' the obli#ation contemplated in the case at bar cannot be considered 7future debt7 as en!isioned by this la There is no proof that hen the suretyship a#reement as entered into' there as a preeistin# obli#ation hich ser!ed as the principal obli#ation beteen the parties 1urthermore' the 7future debts7 alluded to in &rticle 45.6 refer to debts already eistin# at the time of the constitution of the a#reement but the amount thereof is un3non' unli3e in the case at bar here the obli#ation as ac8uired to years after the a#reement9 & #uaranty or a suretyship a#reement is an accessory contract in the sense that it is entered into for the purpose of securin# the performance of another obli#ation hich is denominated as the principal obli#ation t is also true that &rticle 45.4 of the %i!il %ode states that 9a #uarantee cannot eist ithout a !alid obli#ation9 Ne!ertheless' a #uaranty may be constituted to #uarantee the performance of a !oidable or an unenforceable contract t may also #uarantee a natural obli#ation9 ;oreo!er' &rticle 45.6 of the %i!il %ode states that a #uaranty may also be #i!en as security for future debts' the amount of hich is not yet 3non0 there can be no claim a#ainst the #uarantor until the debt is li8uidated & conditional obli#ation may also be secured9 %omprehensi!e or continuin# surety a#reements are in fact 8uite commonplace in present day
4/ of the %i!il %ode hich pro!ides: n case the assi#nor in #ood faith should ha!e made himself responsible for the sol!ency of the debtor' and the contractin# parties should not ha!e a#reed upon the duration of the liability' it shall last for one year only' from the time of the assi#nment if the period had already epired f the credit should be payable ithin a term or period hich has not yet epired' the liability shall cease one year after the maturity9 The debt referred to in this la is the debt under the assi#ned contract or the ori#inal debts in fa!or of the assi#nor hich ere later assi#ned to the assi#nee The debt alluded to in the la' is not the debt incurred by the assi#nor to the assi#nee as contended by the appellant &pplyin# the said la to the case at bar' the records disclose that none of the assi#ned recei!ables had matured hen the +eed of &ssi#nment as eecuted t may be stressed as a preliminary matter that the +eed of &ssi#nment as !alid and bindin# upon Sanyu %hemical &ssi#nment of recei!ables is a commonplace commercial transaction today t is an acti!ity or operation that permits the assi#nee to moneti?e or reali?e the !alue of the recei!ables before the maturity thereof n other ords' Sanyu %hemical recei!ed from &to3 1inance the !alue of its trade recei!ables it had assi#ned0 Sanyu %hemical ob!iously bene4/ of the %i!il %ode is not material The liability of Sanyu %hemical to &to3 1inance rests not on the breach of the arranty of sol!ency0 the liability of Sanyu %hemical as not e le#e but rather e contractu @nder the +eed of &ssi#nment' the eAect of nonpayment by the ori#inal trade debtors as a breach of arranty of sol!ency by Sanyu %hemical' resultin# in turn in the
assumption of solidary liability by the assi#nor under the recei!ables assi#ned n other ords' the assi#nor Sanyu %hemical becomes a solidary debtor under the terms of the recei!ables co!ered and transferred by !irtue of the +eed of &ssi#nment The obli#ations of indi!idual pri!ate respondent oBcers and stoc3holders of Sanyu %hemical under the %ontinuin# Suretyship &#reement' ere acti!ated by the resultin# obli#ations of Sanyu %hemical as solidary obli#or under each of the assi#ned recei!ables by !irtue of the operation of the +eed of &ssi#nment That solidary liability of Sanyu %hemical is not sub2ect to the limitin# period set out in &rticle ->4/ of the %i!il %ode t follos that at the time the ori#inal complaint as
I!!ENTINGCONCURRING OPINION#! : (if applicable)
