GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the BUREAU OF SUPPLY COORINATION vs. MARCELINO TI!ON, ET AL" [G"R" N#" L$%%&'(" A)*)st +', &-./
F01ts2
A bidding was conducted by the Bureau of Supply Coordination of the Department of General Services, for the supply of one !"# Baylift portable heavy$duty truc% and two !&# Baylift 'amps, (.S. )anufacture. )arcelino )arcelino *i+on won the bid, having offered the lowest bid. *o guarantee faithful performance of the conditions of the bid, the Bureau of Supply Coordination reuired *i+on -ngineering to give a bond in the sum of "/,///.//. *he Surety issued its bond for the said amount in favor of the 'epublic of the hilippines. *i+on *i+on -ngineering failed to deliver the euipm euipment ent called called for constr constrain aining ing the Bureau Bureau to purcha purchase se the euipm euipment ent from 0ema 0ema *rading rading,, the second second lowest lowest bidder bidder.. 1otwithstanding demands made by the Bureau of Supply on defendants )arcelino *i+on and the Surety to pay said amount, they failed and refused. 2ence, complaint was filed to recover said sums with interests. Defendant *i+on averred in his answer that3 !a# the alleged bidding conducted by the Bureau of Supply is in utter disregard and wanton violation of the 'ules and 'egulations of the said office hence not liable since the bond$issued by the Surety answers only !for# those contracts legally entered into by the herein defendants with the Bureau of Supply and certainly not those contracts and4or bids which are of doubtful legality, legality, as in the present case. *he defendant Surety, in answer to the complaint, admitted having e5ecuted a bond in favor of the 'epublic of the hilippines for the purpose as therein stated, but denied that it failed and refused to p ay the demand !of the plaintiff#, the truth of the matter being that its co$defendant, )arcelino *i+on, *i+on, doing business under the n ame of *i+on -ngineering, has put it on notice not to settle the claim because he is not in any way whatsoever liable to plaintiff. As cross$claim against defendant *i+on, *i+on, the Surety asserted that if it is made liable to the plaintiff on its bond, )arcelino *i+on *i+on should be ordered to ma%e the corresponding reimbursement, with interest of "&6, plus attorney7s fees. After trial, 8udgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, ordering the latter to pay, jointly and severally. severally. 9nly defendant *i+on appealed. appealed. *he plaintiff then filed a motion praying praying among others to remand the case to the City Court, as concerns the Surety, for e5ecution of the 8udgment rendered in said court. *he Surety opposed the motion on two grounds3 !a# that although it did not appeal from the decision of the inferior court, the appeal interposed by its co$defendant inured to its benefit, because the obligation sued on is so dependent on that of the principal debtor, that the Surety is considered in law as being the same party in relation to whatever is ad8udged, touching the obligation of its co$ defendant: and !b# the appeal of its co$defendant, the principal debtor, should be considered in law as to include the d efendant Surety, Surety, in view of the latter7s cross$claim against the former. former. *he opposition was over$ruled in the order appealed from. Iss)e2
;o1 an appeal by one of the parties sentenced sentenced to pay solidarily a sum of money, inures to the benefit of the other who did not appeal. He3d2
*he pronouncements in the case of Municipality of Orion vs. Concha, Concha , &, provide ample guideposts in the resolution of the issue at bar. ?n said case this Court held3 *he 8udgment was 8oint and several, which means that they are severally liable. ;e have made a careful e5amination of numerous authorities and believe that we are correct in saying that the effect of the appeal by one 8udgment debtor upon the co$ debtors depends upon the particular facts and conditions in each case. 555
555
555
?f the 8udgment can only be sustained upon the liability of the one who appeals and the liability of the other co$8udgment debtors depends solely upon the uestion whether or not the appellant is liable, and the 8udgment is revo%ed as to that appellant, then the result of his appeal will inure to the benefit of all. *he rule is uite general that a reversal as to parties appealing does not necessitate a reversal as to parties not appealing, but that the 8udgment may be affirmed or left undisturbed as to them. An exception to the rule exists, exists, however, however, where a judgment cannot be reversed as to the party appealing without affecting the rights of his co-debtor . !@ C.. "">@# A reversal of a 8udgment on appeal is binding on the parties to the suit, but does not inure to the benefit of parties against whom 8udgment was rendered in the lower court who did not 8oin in the appeal, unless unless their their rights and liabiliti liabilities es and those of the parties appealing are so interwoven an d dependent as to be inseparable, in which case a reversal reversal as to one operates as a reversal as to all. !@ all. !@ C.., "&/=: Alling vs. ;en+el, ;en+el, " ?ll., &=@$&>.# Solution of the uestion posed in this appeal hinges on the nature of the obligation assumed by the Surety under its bond. As Article "&&& of the new Civil Code provides3
A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. ;ith respect to those which personally belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible. ertinent parts of the surety bond provides3 *hat we, *i+on -ngineering, as principal, and the Capital ?nsurance Surety Co., ?nc., as surety, . . . are held and firmly bound unto the 'epublic of the hilippines, in the penal sum of "/,///.//, for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, ointly and !everally, by these presents. ;hereas, the principal agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions of the proposal with the Bureau of Supply: 19; *2-'-09'-, the conditions of this obligations are such that if the above bounden principal shall, in case he becomes the successful bidder in any of the proposal of the Bureau of Supply E !a# accept a contract with the 'epublic of the hilippines, represented by the Bureau of Supply: !b# faithfully and truly performs in good faith the contract: !c# to pay to the 'epublic of the hilippines, in case of delay and4or default in the e5ecution of the contract, any loss or damages which the latter may suffer by reason thereof, not to e5ceed the sum of "/,///.//, hilippine currency, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise it shall remain in full fo rce and effect. ?t thus appears that the Surety bound itself, jointly and severally, with the principal obligor to pay the 'epublic of the hilippines any loss or damage the latter may suffer, not e5ceeding "/,///.//, in case of delay and4or default in the e5ecution of the contract. 2owever, although the defendants bound themselves in solidum, the liability of the Surety under its bond would arise only if its co$defendant, the principal obligor, should fail to comply with the contract. *o paraphrase the ruling in the case of Municipality of Orion vs. Concha, the liability of the Surety is conseuent upon the liability of *i+on, or so dependent on that of the principal debtor that the Surety is considered in law as being the same party as the debtor in relation to whatever is ad8udged, touching the obligation of the latter: or the liabilities of the two defendants herein are so interwoven and dependent as to be inseparable. Changing the e5pression, if the defendants are held liable, their liability to pay the plaintiff would be solidary, but the nature of the Surety7s underta%ing is such that it does not incur liability unless and until the principal debtor is held liable. *rue, it is that the Surety did not appeal the decision of the inferior court to the Court of 0irst ?nstance, and on account of its failure to appeal, it lost its personality to appear in the latter court or to file an answer therein. 2owever this may be, it is not certain at this stage of the proceeding that the Surety7s liability unto plaintiff has attached. *he principal debtor has asserted on appeal that it has no liability whatsoever to the plaintiff, and, if this assertion be proven and sustained, the reversal of the 8udgment of the inferior court would operate as a reversal on the Surety, even though it did not appeal, in view of the dependency of its obligation upon the liability of the principal debtor. *he principal debtor might succeed in his appeal: in such eventuality, the 8udgment of the inferior court could not continue in force against the Surety. Conseuently, it is premature at this 8uncture to e5ecute said 8udgment against the Surety. *he situation of the Surety may be li%ened to that of a defaulting defendant whose right is protected under Section @, 'ule "> of the 'ules of Court as follows3 udgment "hen !ome #efendants Answer and Others ma$e #efault .E;hen a complaint states a common cause of action against several defendants, some of whom answer, and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon the answer thus filed and render 8udgment upon the evidence presented. *he same procedure applies when a common cause of action is pleaded in a counterclaim, cross$claim and third$party claim. Albeit it may not personally be allowed to file an answer in the Court of 0irst ?nstance, having failed to interpose an appeal, the Surety can rely on the answer of its co$defendant and derive benefit therefrom if the 8udgment on appeal should turn out to be favorable to the answering defendant !Castro vs. eFa, >/ hil. @>>,
(pon the foregoing considerations, that portion of the appealed order remanding the record of the case to the City Court of )anila for e5ecution of the decision of said court is hereby set aside, without costs.
