This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| While a surety undertakes to pay if the principal does not pay, the guarantor only binds himself to pay if the principal cannot pay. The former is the insurer of the debt, the latter an insurer of the solvency of the debtor.[41] We further expounded on the nature of a contract of guaranty (vis-a-vis a contract of surety) in E. Zobel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[42] thus:A contract of surety is an accessory promise by which a person binds himself for another already bound, and agrees with the creditor to satisfy the obligation if the debtor does not. A contract of guaranty, on the other hand, is a collateral undertaking to pay the debt of another in case the latter does not pay the debt. | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (5) whether the benefit of excussion can still be invoked by the defendant guarantor even after the notice has been allegedly sent by the plaintiff although proper receipt is denied.[14] On 20 September 2002, prior to the trial proper, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.[15] Respondent alleged therein that it was entitled to a summary judgment on account of petitioner's admission during the pre-trial of the genuineness and due execution of the Contract of Guaranty. The contention of petitioner and Marilyn that they were entitled to the benefit of excussion was not a genuine issue. Respondent had already exhausted all legal remedies to collect from Macrogen Realty, but its efforts proved unsuccessful. Given that the inability of Macrogen Realty as debtor to pay the amount of its debt was already proven by the return of the writ of execution to CIAC unsatisfied, the liability of petitioner as guarantor already arose.[16] In any event, petitioner and Marilyn were deemed to have forfeited their right to avail themselves of the benefit of excussion because they failed to comply with Article 2060[17] of the Civil Code when petitioner ignored respondent's demand letter dated 3 January 2001 for payment of the amount he guaranteed.[18] The duty to collect the supposed receivables of Macrogen Realty from its creditors could not be imposed on respondent, since petitioner and Marilyn never informed respondent about such uncollected credits even after receipt of the demand letter for payment. The allegation of petitioner and Marilyn that they could not respond to respondent's demand letter since they did not receive the same was unsubstantiated and insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact which could defeat respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. The claim that Marilyn never participated in the transactions that culminated in petitioner's execution of the Contract of Guaranty was nothing more than a sham. | |||||