GARON VS.

PROJECT MOVERS REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

GR NO. 166058, 520 SCRA 317 (2007)
FACTS: On December 19, 1997, Project Movers Realty and Development Corporation (PMRDC) obtained a loan from
Emerita Garon in the amount of P6,088,783.68. The loan was covered by Promissory Note to mature on December 19,
1998 with an interest of 36% per annum, secured by a leasehold rights over a space at the Monumento Plaza Commercial
Complex owned by PMRDC. The parties stipulated that failure to pay the note or any portion thereof, or any interest
thereon, shall constitute default, and the entire obligation shall become due and payable without need of demand. On
December 31, 1997, PMRDC obtained another loan from Garon in the amount of P189,418.75, at 17% per annum, to
mature on December 31, 1998. The transaction was covered by Promissory Note. This loan was secured by an assignment
of leasehold rights over another space of the Monumento Plaza Commercial Complex. To secure its obligation to assign
the leasehold rights to Garon, PMRDC procured a surety bond from Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. (SICI) to
guarantee the assignment of leasehold rights and will expire on November 7, 1998 and said bond will be cancelled five
days after its expiration, unless surety is notified of any existing obligations thereunder. In view of PMRDCs and SICIs
failure to comply with their respective obligations, when PMRDC defaulted and upon demand by Garon PMRDC to
execute and deliver a unilateral Deed of Assignment and for SICI to comply with its obligation under the surety bond
dated November 3 and 6, 1998 respectively, Garon filed a Complaint for collection before the RTC of Makati City. SICI
averred that the complaint stated no cause of action and was prematurely filed; its obligation had been extinguished; the
liability on the bond had been discharged by the act of plaintiff and by the act of law; and its liability on the bond had
prescribed. It likewise contended that at the time plaintiff sent the demand letter, the obligation guaranteed by the bond
had not yet matured. PMRDC denied that it executed the above-stated promissory notes and alleged instead that they were
merely roll-overs. It also alleged that it had already complied with its undertaking under the promissory notes when it put
up a surety bond; and when Garon chose to demand from SICI, she effectively waived the right to claim from it. PMRDC
further denied liability on the stipulated interest on the ground that the same is exorbitant and unconscionable. As a
counterclaim, PMRDC asked for moral and exemplary damages, as well as for attorneys fees. As and by way of crossclaim against SICI, it likewise demanded the payment of moral damages and attorneys fees. RTC rendered its decision in
favor of the petitioner. Respondents appeal to the CA a special civil action for Certiorari with Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the order of the court granting execution pending appeal. CA
rendered its decision in favor of the SICI, however, in view of PMRDCs failure to file its appellants brief, the CA issued
a Resolution dismissing its appeal for having been abandoned. The Resolution became final and executory.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent SICI is liable to petitioner under its surety bond.
HELD: NO. It must be stressed that the principal obligation guaranteed by the surety bond is the assignment of the
leasehold rights of PMRDC to petitioner over the subject spaces. Petitioner made a formal demand on November 3, 1998
for PMRDC to perform the obligation, but the latter defaulted. As such, PMRDCs liability as principal arose.
Consequently, respondents liability as surety likewise arose. However, an examination of the terms of the surety bond
clearly shows that respondent guaranteed the assignment of the leasehold rights, not the payment of a particular sum of
money owed by PMRDC to petitioner. The principal obligation therefore is the assignment of the leasehold right, and the
accessory obligation is the surety agreement. The extent of a suretys liability is determined by the language of the
suretyship contract or bond itself. Since respondents undertaking under the surety bond was to guarantee the assignment
of leasehold rights, the security of the principal debt, its obligation cannot extend to the payment of the principal
obligation; to do so would mean going beyond the terms of the contract. In sum, respondents liability on the bond arose
from the time PMRDC failed to comply with its obligation to assign its leasehold rights over the subject properties as
security for the payment of her debt covered by the promissory notes, not on the maturity of the loan. However,
respondent cannot be held liable to make such payment for the following reasons:
(1) its undertaking under the surety bond was merely to guarantee the assignment of PMRDCs leasehold rights
and not the payment of the principal obligation; and
(2) petitioner, in instituting the instant case, is seeking to enforce her right to
collect the principal debt rather than enforce the security.

INTRA-STRATA ASSURANCE CORPORATION and PHILIPPINE HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION VS.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
FACTS: Grand textile is a local manufacturing corporation importing various articles such as dyestuffs, spare parts for
warehouse machinery and filaments. Subsequent to importation, the articles were transferred to Bureau of Customs (BoC)
where it required payment of tariffs and other charges. Inter-Strata and PhilHome issued warehousing bonds in favor of
BoC which provided that the goods shall be withdrawn from the bonded warehouse on payment of the legal customs
duties, internal revenue, and other charges to which they shall then be subject. Without payment of the taxes, customs
duties, and charges due and for purposes of domestic consumption, Grand Textile withdrew the imported goods from
storage. The Bureau of Customs demanded payment of the amounts due from Grand Textile as importer, and from IntraStrata and PhilHome as sureties. All three failed to pay. The government responded by filing a collection suit against the
parties with the RTC of Manila. The RTC ruled in favor of the BoC which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUES: Whether or not the withdrawal of the stored goods, wares and merchandise without notice to them as sureties
released them from any liability for the duties, taxes, and charges they committed to pay under the bonds they issued.
RULINGS: No. The surety does not, by reason of the surety agreement, earn the right to intervene in the principal
creditor-debtor relationship; its role becomes alive only upon the debtors default, at which time it can be directly held
liable by the creditor for payment as a solidary obligor. A surety contract is made principally for the benefit of the
creditor-obligee and this is ensured by the solidary nature of the sureties undertaking. Under these terms, the surety is not
entitled as a rule to a separate notice of default, nor to the benefit of exclusion, and may be sued separately or together
with the principal debtor.