This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila sentencing  Jesus  O. Hiponia and the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co.,  Inc. to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P2,778.90, plus legal  in- terest  thereon from  December 21, 1949, and  dismissing the cross-complaint of said  company  with respect to  its co-defendant, Juan C. Capalad. The Manila Terminal Co.,  Inc., hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, was a contractor and operator of  the government arrastre service in the port of Manila,  while Jesus O.  Hiponia was a  custom broker engaged in brokerage business in the City of Manila.   To expedite the delivery of goods,  wares and merchandise to Hiponia in connection with  his  customs brokerage business, plaintiff  required that he  posts arrastre  bonds to secure  the payment of arrastre charges that may be due against him.  In  compliance  with this requirement, Hiponia posted on  March 6,  1947  an  arrastre  bond  executed  by  the  Philippine Guaranty Co,, Inc. in the amount of P5,000, to expire on December  31,  1947 to  guarantee the payment  of "all arrastre and other charges that may have accrued or may be due  on all  and every goods, "wares and merchandise which may be imported into, or exported from, the  Philippine Islands" by Hiponia "upon export and import permits issued to him."

On April 8,  1947,  plaintiff  again required Hiponia  to post a second arrastre bond  and the same company again issued a second arrastre bond in the amount  of P10,000 in favor of plaintiff under the same terms and conditions set forth in the first arrastre bond.  As plaintiff required Hiponia  to post another arrastre bond, on May 29, 1947, the Far  Eastern Surety & Insurance Co.,  Inc. posted the third bond in the amount of P5,000 under the same terms and  conditions set forth in the first and  second bonds.

It  appears that Hiponia  failed  to  pay  plaintiff  the arrastre and other charges  in the amount of P11,2315.58 over a period of from March 6, 1947 to December 31, 1947 and so it required Hiponia and the sureties to pay the same. Out  of said claim, the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. paid the sum  of P8,486.68 and Hiponia the sum of P50, leaving a balance of P2,778.90.  It is this balance which plaintiff now seeks to collect from the  Far Eastern Surety Insurance Co.,  Inc. primarily and, in the alternative,  from the  Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc., jointly and severally,  with Jesus O. Hiponia.

Defendant Hiponia, having  failed to answer,, was declared in default.   The two  sureties filed their respective answers after  their motions to dismiss  were denied  by the court.   On August 14, 1950, the Far  Eastern  Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.  filed  an  amended  answer  with  a view to  including  a cross-complaint  against Jesus  O. Hiponia and Juan C. Capalad based on the fact that they  executed in its i'avor an indemnity agreement to indemnify it against any  damage which it may sustain  for  haying issued  an arrastre bond  in  behalf of. Jesus  O. Hiponia. Hiponia did not answer this cross-complaint.  On his part, Capalad answered  alleging that he only acted as a witness in  said indemnity agreement and so he cannot bo  held liable.   After trial, the court rendered judgment as stated in  the  early part of this  decision.

After this case was  taken to the Court of Appeals, the latter certified the case to us on the ground that the question raised  on  appeal is purely one of law.

The  only question involved in  this  appeal  is whether appellant  may  be  held answerable  for the  balance  of P778.90  as part  of the arrastre charges which Hiponia had failed to pay  to plaintiff under its  bond  executed  on May 29, 1947,  it  appearing that the same  can be fully covered by the two bonds previously executed by the other surety  in favor of the  plaintiff.

It appears that three  arrastre bonds  were executed in favor of appellee to  guarantee all arrastre charges that  may be due from  Hiponia and which he may  fail  to pay to appellee: one for P5,000  dated  March 6,  1947 executed by the  Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc.; another for 1*10,000 executed by the same  company on April 8, 1947, and a third for  P5,000  executed  on May 29,  1947  by the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.  It  also  appears that the total  arrastre charges  that  accrued  in favor  of appellee amounts to P11,315.58 and that, while the  Philippine Guaranty  Co.,  Inc. paid its proportionate share  of P8,486.68  under its bonds, the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. refused to pay the balance of P2,778.90.

The  refusal of this company to  pay this balance is pre- dicated on two grounds:  (1) when  it executed its bond on May 29, 1947,  it did so  with  the understanding that it will  only be liable  thereon after  the first  two bonds previously executed  would  be . found insufficient  to pay the charges that may be due from Jesus 0. Hiponia,  and (2)  the balance of P2,778.90 due from Hiponia had already accrued when  it executed said bond  and, therefore, the same  is not covered  by  it  since it  cannot  be given a retroactive  effect.
 
The  first ground does not  find  support in the  evidence. There  is nothing in the bond executed by appellant from which  it may be inferred  that it  undertook to answer for the  arrastre charges that may be due from Hiponia  only in case the two  bonds  previously executed would  be in- sufficient  to cover them.   On the  contrary,  that  under  taking  appears  to  be  distinct   and  separate  from the undertaking of the  other surety  and  it should  therefore be considered  exclusively  according  to  its terms and  conditions.  In  this  respect, we  find  correct  the  following findings of the court a  quo:

* * * A  perusal of Exhibit 'C reveals the faet  that  the Far Kastern Surety  & Insurance  Company,  Inc. bound  itself  to pay, jointly and severally with Jesus 0. Hiponia, all arrastre and  other changes that may  havo arisen or which may fall due. on  all and every goods, ware and merchandise which  may be imported  into, or exported from the  Philippines by Jesus O. Hiponia up to December 31, 1947.  It does  not mention anything about the arrastre bonds, Exhibits 'A' and 'B' executed  by plaintiff Philippine  Guaranty  Company, Inc.  It cannot, therefore, be claimed that the liability assumed by the surety under Exhibit 'C is  a subsidiary to the  liability assumed by the  surety in  Exhibits 'A' and 'B'  The .relationship between the parties as  follows:   Hiponia  and  the Philippine Guaranty Company,  Inc.  are solidarily liable to the plaintiff for arrastre charges up  to December 31,  1947 in the sum of  P15,000. Hiponia and the Far Eastern Surety  &  Insurance Company, Inc., in a separate and  independent obligation, are solidarily  liable in. favor of the plaintiff for  arrastre charges up to December 31, 1947 in the  sum  of  P5,000.  But  the surety  in  Exhibits 'A'  and  'B' has  nothing whatsoever to do with, the liability of  the surety in Exhibit 'C.  Likewise,  the  surety in Exhibit 'C has nothing  to do with the liability of the surety in. Exhibits 'A' and 'B,:"

The  second  ground  requires  an  examination of  the bond executed by appellant, the pertinent portion  of which we quote:

"The condition of this bond  is such, that if the above-bounden principal  shall  well and truly pay, or cause to be paid unto the above-named  MANILA TERMINAL company, inc.,  all  the arrastre and other  charges that may have  arisen or due on all  and every goods, wares and merchandises which  may be imported  into or exported from  the Philippine Islands  by  the above-bounden principal upon export or import permits issued to  him, then this obligation shall he void; otherwise to remain  in full force and effect."

Before we  proceed, a  little digression is necessary on the nature  and extent of the liability  of a  surety.   In El Vencedor vs.  Canlas, 44 Phil., 699, this Court said: "The rule is  well known that a bond or contract of suretyship is strictly  construed and cannot  be extended beyond its specified limits (Civil  Code, Article 1827).  It is not retrospective  and no liability attaches for defaults occurring before it is entered into  unless .an intent to be  so  liable is indicated."   In a later case, this Court also said: "Bonds or other contracts of suretyship  are  ordinarily not  to be construed as  retrospective, but that rule must yield to the intention of the contradicting parties as revealed by the evidence, and does  not interfere  with the  application of the  ordinary  tests  and  canons  followed  in the  interpretation of  other  contracts"  (Bank  of the  Philippine Islands vs.  Foerster, 49 Phil., 843).

Considering that  the arrastre  charges which  are now demanded  from appellant had  already accrued when the if  company executed its bond on  May 29, 1947 in  favor of appellee, it follows  that in line with  the principle above enunciated,  appellant cannot  be held  liable therefor, because its bond cannot be  given a retroactive effect unless an intent to be so liable clearly appears from the evidence. Here such  intention does  not appear clear.  While  the bond  states that it  shall answer for "all the arrastre and other charges that  may  have  arisen  or due" from  the principal debtor, such sentence is however qualified by the following words "on all and every goods, wares and merchandise which may be imported into,  or  exported from, the Philippine Islands", which give the connotation that the undertaking only covers charges that may accrue in the future.   (Italics supplied)  The  least  that we  can  say is  that  the wording of the bond is ambiguous or equivocal and as such it cannot be considered as an exception to the rule.   And considering that a  contract of suretyship is strictly construed against the creditor when the intention of the parties  is not clearly expressed, we  have no other alternative  than to hold that appellant is  not liable for the payment of the amount claimed  in  the  complaint.  In this respect, we find erroneous  the  decision of the lower court.

The decision appealed from should therefore be modified in the sense that the action should be dismissed  in so far as  appellant is  concerned.  The rest  of the  decision as regards  defendant  Jesus  O. Hiponia  should  stand.  No pronouncement as  to  costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,   A., Labrador, Conception, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.