Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

109 Phil 1132:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-16029. October 31, 1960.]

STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LORETO PAZ and GLOBE ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendants. GLOBE ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., cross plaintiff and appellant, v. LORETO PAZ and MAXIMA PAZ, cross defendants and appellees.

Mabanag, Saura & Magno for Appellant.

Baizas & Balderrama for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


SURETYSHIP; LIABILITY OF SURETY WHERE TWO AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BY PRINCIPAL; CASE AT BAR. — On September 21, 1953, L. P. entered into a sales agreement with plaintiff. On April 12, 1955, she entered into another sales agreement with plaintiff. The first agreement is the same as the second, the only difference being one of dates. Four months after the second agreement had been executed, a surety company executed undertakings of suretyship in favor of plaintiff to guarantee the fulfillment by L. P. of her obligations. Pursuant to the sales agreement, plaintiff furnished goods to L. P., who failed to pay a certain amount of her indebtedness. Issue: Is the surety’s liability limited strictly to the terms of the first agreement, or does it extend to the obligations of L. P. under the second agreement? Held: Both agreements provide that they shall remain and continue in force indefinitely "subject to thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation from either party to the other." The obligation of the buyer under the first agreement (which was guaranteed by the surety) was therefore a continuing one until terminated by cancellation in writing. Since the second agreement did not terminate that obligation, but merely continued or renewed it, the liability of the surety remained unaffected.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


Upon a complaint of Standard Vacuum Oil Company against Loreto Paz, as principal debtor and Globe Assurance Company, Inc., as surety, the Court of First Instance of Manila (in Civil Case No. 33561 of its docket) rendered judgment condemning both defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P13,984.76 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until fully paid, plus 25% of the principal as attorney’s fees and costs; and on the cross-claim of the surety, sentencing cross-defendants spouses Loreto Paz and Maxima Paz 1 (as indemnitors) to pay the surety company such amount as may be paid by the latter to plaintiff Stanvac, with 12% interest from date of such payment until fully reimbursed, plus 15% of the principal judgment as attorney’s fees and costs.

Globe has brought the present appeal.

The facts are succinctly stated in the decision of the lower court, Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan, presiding, as follows:ClubJuris

"On September 21, 1953, Loreto Paz entered into a sales agreement with plaintiff which has not been exhibited in the record; two years after that, on April 12, 1955, he entered into another sales agreement. Exhibit ‘A’. According to witness Roberto Maglaya of plaintiff, the first agreement of September 21, 1959, is exactly the same as the second agreement of April 12, 1955, because this is a regular company form, the only difference being one of dates and that the second agreement is only a continuation of the first; after the second agreement had been executed or about four (4) months (i.e., on 4 August 1955) thereafter, Globe Assurance executed undertakings of suretyship Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘D’ in favor of plaintiff to guarantee the fulfillment by Loreto Paz of his obligations; plaintiff, pursuant to the sales agreement furnished various quantities of petroleum products unto Loreto Paz; of these amounts there was due and owing as of April, 1957, the sum of P13,984.78 according to Exhibit ‘B-1’; it is this amount which is the object of the present complaint. . . ." clubjuris

Appellant Globe Assurance Company, Inc., in this instance, assigns four specific errors allegedly committed by the lower court, all of which, however, may be reduced to the single basic contention that appellant’s liability is limited strictly and exclusively to the terms of the Reseller Sales Agreement dated September 21, 1953, specifically referred to in appellant’s undertaking of suretyship, Exhibits C and D, and does not extend to the obligations of Paz under the Reseller Sales Agreement executed on April 12, 1955.

We find the stand of appellant untenable.

The contention of appellant would have validity if it be considered that the execution of the April, 1955 agreement has for its effect the termination of the September, 1953 contract. But, this is precisely not the intention of the parties as shown by their leaving in blank the spaces in the sentence "This cancels and supersedes Reseller Sales Agreement No. _______________ dated _________" found in paragraph 18 of the April, 1955 agreement. The sole witness presented testified that the latter contract is a mere continuation of the first. Appellant’s attorney admitted it is a "renewal" of the former. Both agreements (which are admitted to be identical in terms) provide that they shall remain and continue in force indefinitely "subject to thirty (30) days’ written notice of cancellation from either party to the other." Under the circumstances, the obligation of the buyer under the September, 1953 agreement (which was guaranteed by the appellant) was a continuing one until terminated by cancellation in writing. And, since the contract of 1955 did not terminate that obligation but merely continued or renewed it, the liability of the surety remained unaffected.

Moreover, as the trial court found, the undertaking of appellant under its suretyship agreement comprehends more than the specific obligations of the Reseller Sales Agreement. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Undertaking of Suretyship read:ClubJuris

"1. WHEREAS, on September 21, 1953, a certain Reseller Sales Agreement was entered into between STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY, a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A., duly licensed to transact business in the Philippines, and having its principal office therein in the City of Manila (the ‘SELLER’) and LORETO PAZ, of Highway 64, Makati, Rizal (the ‘BUYER’) which said Reseller Sales Agreement is herein incorporated by reference and made a part hereof; and

"2. WHEREAS, we desire to guarantee to the SELLER the faithful performance on the part of the BUYER of all the covenants contained in the said Reseller Sales Agreement, the payment of the purchase price of the gasoline, kerosene, fuel oil, diesel oil, grease, lubricating oil, and merchandise, in general, that the SELLER has heretofore sold, and may hereafter sell, on credit to the BUYER; the payment of all sums of money advanced by the SELLER at the request and for the account of the BUYER in connection with the business of the SELLER; and the payment of all rentals due from the BUYER to the SELLER on any lease agreement heretofore entered into or which may hereafter be entered into between the SELLER and the BUYER.

"3. Now, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, we Globe Assurance Company, Inc. of Manila, hereby jointly and severally, agreed to reimburse the SELLER for any loss that it may suffer through any default of the BUYER." clubjuris

It would seem clear from the above-quoted provisions that Reseller Sales Agreement was mentioned in Paragraph 1 merely to indicate that a relation of Seller and Buyer was created between Stanvac and Paz. Under paragraph 2, appellant warranted to guarantee, not only the compliance by Paz, of the covenants in the Reseller Sales Agreement, but specifically (1) "the payment of the purchase price of the gasoline, kerosene, fuel oil, diesel oil, grease, lubricating oil and merchandise in general that the Seller has sold or may sell on credit to the Buyer before and after August 4, 1955" (date of the undertaking); (2) "the payment of all sums of money advanced by the Seller at the request and for the account of the Buyer in connection with the business of the Seller" ; and (3) "the payment of all rentals due from the Buyer to the Seller on any lease agreement heretofore entered into or which may hereafter be entered into between the Seller and the Buyer." (Note that these last two undertakings are not in any manner contained or mentioned in the Reseller Sales Agreement, which fact supports the conclusion of the court that the suretyship contract is more comprehensive than the Reseller Sales Agreement.) In paragraph 3, appellant expressly agreed "to reimburse the Seller for any loss that it may suffer through any default of the Buyer." The only limitation to these broad terms of the undertaking of appellant is that the liabilities of the Buyer must have been incurred in connection with the business relationship into which Buyer and Seller had entered during the existence of that relationship. Considered in this light, the account and the amount involved in this case come within the terms of the suretyship agreement.

Appellant argues that the payment by the Philippine American General Insurance (Philamgen) of the sum of P15,000.00 on account of defendant Paz’ total indebtedness to Stanvac amounting to P28,984.75, shows that the bond of said company (Philamgen) was the one which secured the fulfillment of the Reseller Sales Agreement of April 12, 1955 (Exh. A). There is absolutely no evidence on record supporting this inference. On the one hand, Stanvac had the right to cover the total indebtedness which far exceeded the guarantee subscribed by appellant; on the other, this is expressly authorized in the following quoted provision of appellant’s undertaking of suretyship:ClubJuris

"We expressly agree with the Seller that our liability under the terms of this Undertaking of Suretyship shall in no way be affected by any other security that the Seller has heretofore received, or may hereafter receive, from the Buyer or from any other person." (2nd par., par. 8.)

Finding the decision appealed from in accordance with law, the same is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Gutiérrez David and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. "The spouses Paz were declared in default for failure to appear and answer both the complaint and the cross-claim’ filed against them.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152