This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-02-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. v. Republic-Asahi Glass Corporation,[52] reiterating the ruling in Garcia v. Court of Appeals,[53] expounds on the nature of the surety's liability: X x x. The surety's obligation is not an original and direct one for the performance of his own act, but merely accessory or collateral to the obligation contracted by the principal. Nevertheless, although the contract of a surety is in essence secondary only to a valid principal obligation, his liability to the creditor or promisee of the principal is said to be direct, primary and absolute; in other words, he is directly and equally bound with the principal. | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. v. Republic-Asahi Glass Corporation,[19] reiterating the ruling in Garcia v. Court of Appeals,[20] expounds on the nature of the surety's liability: X x x. The surety's obligation is not an original and direct one for the performance of his own act, but merely accessory or collateral to the obligation contracted by the principal. Nevertheless, although the contract of a surety is in essence secondary only to a valid principal obligation, his liability to the creditor or promisee of the principal is said to be direct, primary and absolute; in other words, he is directly and equally bound with the principal. | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| As correctly pointed out by PMO, the original loans alluded to by respondents had been refinanced and restructured in order to extend their maturity dates. Refinancing is an exchange of an old debt for a new debt, as by negotiating a different interest rate or term or by repaying the existing loan with money acquired from a new loan.[36] On the other hand, restructuring, as applied to a debt, implies not only a postponement of the maturity[37] but also a modification of the essential terms of the debt (e.g., conversion of debt into bonds or into equity,[38] or a change in or amendment of collateral security) in order to make the account of the debtor current.[39] | |||||
|
2005-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Suretyship is a contractual relation resulting from an agreement whereby one person, the surety, engages to be answerable for the debt, default or miscarriage of another, known as the principal. The surety's obligation is not an original and direct one for the performance of his own act, but merely accessory or collateral to the obligation contracted by the principal. Nevertheless, although the contract of a surety is in essence secondary only to a valid principal obligation, his liability to the creditor or promise of the principal is said to be direct, primary and absolute; in other words, he is directly and equally bound with the principal. The surety therefore becomes liable for the debt or duty of another although he possesses no direct or personal interest over the obligations nor does he receive any benefit therefrom.[41] | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Similarly, there is no basis for petitioners to limit their responsibility thereon so long as they were corporate officers and stockholders of FBPC. Nothing in the Continuing Guaranty restricts their contractual undertaking to such condition or eventuality. In fact the obligations assumed by them therein subsist "upon the undersigned, the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the undersigned, and shall inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by you, your successors, transferees and assigns," and that their commitment "shall remain in full force and effect until written notice shall have been received by [the Bank] that it has been revoked by the undersigned." Verily, if petitioners intended not to be charged as sureties after their withdrawal from FBPC, they could have simply terminated the agreement by serving the required notice of revocation upon the Bank as expressly allowed therein.[47] In Garcia v. Court of Appeals[48] we ruled - | |||||