You are on page 1of 3

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.96405.June26,1996]
BALDOMEROINCIONG,JR.,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandPHILIPPINE
BANKOFCOMMUNICATIONS,respondents.
SYLLABUS
1.REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;PAROLEVIDENCERULE;DOESNOTSPECIFY
THATTHEWRITTENAGREEMENTBEAPUBLICINSTRUMENT.Clearly,
theruledoesnotspecifythatthewrittenagreementbeapublicdocument. Whatis
requiredisthattheagreementbe inwriting astheruleisinfactfoundedon"long
experiencethatwrittenevidenceissomuchmorecertainandaccuratethanthatwhich
restsinfleetingmemoryonly,thatitwouldbeunsafe,whenpartieshaveexpressedthe
termsoftheircontractinwriting,toadmitweakerevidencetocontrolandvarythe
strongerandtoshowthatthepartiesintendedadifferentcontractfromthatexpressed
inthewritingsignedbythem"[FRANCISCO,THERULESOFCOURTOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,Vol.VII,PartI,1990ed.,p.179]Thus,fortheparolevidenceruleto
apply,awrittencontractneednotbeinanyparticularform,orbesignedbyboth
parties.Asageneralrule,bills,notesandotherinstrumentsofasimilarnaturearenot
subjecttobevariedorcontradictedbyparolorextrinsicevidence.
2. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS; SOLIDARY OR JOINT AND SEVERAL
OBLIGATION, DEFINED. A solidary or joint and several obligation is one in
whicheachdebtorisliablefortheentireobligation,andeachcreditorisentitledto
demandthewholeobligation.[TOLENTINO,CIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Vol.IV,1991ed.,p.217]Section4,Chapter3,Title1,BookIVoftheCivilCode
statesthelawonjointandseveralobligations. UnderArt.1207thereof,whenthere
aretwoormoredebtorsinoneandthesameobligation,thepresumptionisthatthe
obligationisjointsothateachofthedebtorsisliableonlyfortheproportionatepartof
thedebt. Thereisasolidaryliabilityonlywhentheobligationexpresslysostates,
whenthelawsoprovidesorwhenthenatureoftheobligationsorequires.[Sesbreo
v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.89252,May24,1993,222SCRA466,481.]
3. ID.; GUARANTY; GUARANTOR AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SOLIDARY
DEBTOR.Whileaguarantormaybindhimselfsolidarilywiththeprincipaldebtor,
theliabilityofaguarantorisdifferentfromthatofasolidarydebtor.Thus,Tolentino
explains:"Aguarantorwhobindshimselfinsolidumwiththeprincipaldebtorunder
theprovisionsofthesecondparagraphdoesnotbecomeasolidarycodebtortoall
intentsandpurposes.Thereisadifferencebetweenasolidarycodebtor,andafiador
insolidum (surety). Thelatter,outsideoftheliabilityheassumestopaythedebt
beforethepropertyoftheprincipaldebtorhasbeenexhausted,retainsalltheother
rights,actionsandbenefitswhichpertaintohimbyreasonofthe fiansa; whilea
solidarycodebtorhasnootherrightsthanthosebestoweduponhiminSection4,
Chapter 3, Title 1, Book IV of the Civil Code." [Tolentino, Civil Code of the
Philippines,Vol.V,1992ed.,p.502]
APPEARANCESOFCOUNSEL

EmilioG.Abrogenaforpetitioner.
TeogenesX.Velezforprivaterespondent.
DECISION
ROMERO,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsaffirming
thatoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMisamisOriental,Branch18,[if!supportFootnotes][1][endif]which
disposedofCivilCaseNo.10507forcollectionofasumofmoneyanddamages,asfollows:
"WHEREFORE,defendantBALDOMEROL.INCIONG,JR.isadjudgedsolidarilyliableand
orderedtopaytotheplaintiffPhilippineBankofCommunications,CagayandeOroCity,the
amountofFIFTYTHOUSANDPESOS(P50,000.00),withinterestthereonfromMay5,1983
at16%perannumuntilfullypaid;and6%perannumonthetotalamountdue,asliquidated
damagesorpenaltyfromMay5,1983untilfullypaid;plus10%ofthetotalamountduefor
expensesoflitigationandattorney'sfees;andtopaythecosts.
Thecounterclaim,aswellasthecrossclaim,aredismissedforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED."
Petitioner'sliabilityresultedfromthepromissorynoteintheamountofP50,000.00whichhe
signedwithReneC.NaybeandGregorioD.PantanosasonFebruary3,1983,holding
themselvesjointlyandseverallyliabletoprivaterespondentPhilippineBankof
Communications,CagayandeOroCitybranch.ThepromissorynotewasdueonMay5,
1983.
Saidduedateexpiredwithoutthepromissorshavingpaidtheirobligation.Consequently,on
November14,1983andonJune8,1984,privaterespondentsentpetitionertelegrams
demandingpaymentthereof.[if!supportFootnotes][2][endif]OnDecember11,1984privaterespondentalso
sentbyregisteredmailafinalletterofdemandtoReneC.Naybe.Sincebothobligorsdidnot
respondtothedemandsmade,privaterespondentfiledonJanuary24,1986acomplaintfor
collectionofthesumofP50,000.00againstthethreeobligors.
OnNovember25,1986,thecomplaintwasdismissedforfailureoftheplaintifftoprosecute
thecase.However,onJanuary9,1987,thelowercourtreconsideredthedismissalorderand
requiredthesherifftoservethesummonses.OnJanuary27,1987,thelowercourtdismissed
thecaseagainstdefendantPantanosasasprayedforbytheprivaterespondentherein.
Meanwhile,onlythesummonsaddressedtopetitionerwasservedasthesherifflearnedthat
defendantNaybehadgonetoSaudiArabia.
Inhisanswer,petitionerallegedthatsometimeinJanuary1983,hewasapproachedbyhis
friend,RudyCampos,whotoldhimthathewasapartnerofPioTio,thebranchmanagerof
privaterespondentinCagayandeOroCity,inthefalcatalogsoperationbusiness.Campos
alsointimatedtohimthatReneC.Naybewasinterestedinthebusinessandwouldcontribute
achainsawtotheventure.Headdedthat,althoughNaybehadnomoneytobuytheequipment
PioTiohadassuredNaybeoftheapprovalofaloanhewouldmakewithprivaterespondent.
Camposthenpersuadedpetitionertoactasa"comaker"inthesaidloan.Petitionerallegedly
accededbutwiththeunderstandingthathewouldonlybeacomakerfortheloanof
P5,000.00.
Petitionerallegedfurtherthatfive(5)copiesofablankpromissorynotewerebroughttohim
byCamposathisoffice.Heaffixedhissignaturetheretobutinonecopy,heindicatedthathe

boundhimselfonlyfortheamountofP5,000.00.Thus,itwasbytrickery,fraudand
misrepresentationthathewasmadeliablefortheamountofP50,000.00.
Intheaforementioneddecisionofthelowercourt,itnotedthatthetypewrittenfigure
"P50,000"clearlyappearsdirectlybelowtheadmittedsignatureofthepetitionerinthe
promissorynote.[if!supportFootnotes][3][endif]Hence,thelatter'suncorroboratedtestimonyonhislimited
liabilitycannotprevailoverthepresumedregularityandfairnessofthetransaction,underSec.
5(q)ofRule131.Thelowercourtaddedthatitwas"ratherodd"forpetitionertohave
indicatedinacopyandnotintheoriginal,ofthepromissorynote,hissupposedobligationin
theamountofP5,000.00only.Finally,thelowercourtheldthatevengrantingthatsaid
limitedamounthadactuallybeenagreedupon,thesamewouldhavebeenmerelycollateral
betweenhimandNaybeand,therefore,notbindingupontheprivaterespondentascreditor
bank.
ThelowercourtalsonotedthatpetitionerwasaholderofaBachelorofLawsdegreeanda
laborconsultantwhowassupposedtotakeduecareofhisconcerns,andthat,onthewitness
stand,PioTiodeniedhavingparticipatedintheallegedbusinessventurealthoughheknewfor
afactthatthefalcatalogsoperationwasencouragedbythebankforitsexportpotential.
PetitionerappealedthesaiddecisiontotheCourtofAppealswhich,initsdecisionofAugust
31,1990,affirmedthatofthelowercourt.Hismotionforreconsiderationofthesaiddecision
havingbeendenied,hefiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
OnFebruary6,1991,theCourtdeniedthepetitionforfailureofpetitionertocomplywiththe
RulesofCourtandparagraph2ofCircularNo.188,andtosufficientlyshowthatrespondent
courthadcommittedanyreversibleerrorinitsquestioneddecision.[if!supportFootnotes][4][endif]His
motionforthereconsiderationofthedenialofhispetitionwaslikewisedeniedwithfinalityin
theResolutionofApril24,1991.[if!supportFootnotes][5][endif]Thereafter,petitionerfiledamotionfor
leavetofileasecondmotionforreconsiderationwhich,intheResolutionofMay27,1991,the
Courtdenied.InthesameResolution,theCourtorderedtheentryofjudgmentinthiscase.[if!
supportFootnotes][6][endif]

Unfazed,petitionerfiledamotionforleavetofileamotionforclarification.Inthelatter
motion,heassertedthathehadattachedRegistryReceiptNo.3268topage14ofthepetition
incompliancewithCircularNo.188.Thus,onAugust7,1991,theCourtgrantedhisprayer
thathispetitionbegivenduecourseandreinstatedthesame.[if!supportFootnotes][7][endif]
Nonetheless,wefindthepetitionunmeritorious.
AnnexedtothepetitionisacopyofanaffidavitexecutedonMay3,1988,orafterthe
renditionofthedecisionofthelowercourt,byGregorioPantanosas,Jr.,anMTCCjudgeand
petitioner'scomakerinthepromissorynote.Itsupportspetitioner'sallegationthattheywere
inducedtosignthepromissorynoteonthebeliefthatitwasonlyforP5,000.00,addingthatit
wasCamposwhocausedtheamountoftheloantobeincreasedtoP50,000.00.
Theaffidavitisclearlyintendedtobuttresspetitioner'scontentionintheinstantpetitionthat
theCourtofAppealsshouldhavedeclaredthepromissorynotenullandvoidonthefollowing
grounds:(a)thepromissorynotewassignedintheofficeofJudgePantanosas,outsidethe
premisesofthebank;(b)theloanwasincurredforthepurposeofbuyingasecondhand
chainsawwhichcostonlyP5,000.00;(c)evenanewchainsawwouldcostonlyP27,500.00;
(d)theloanwasnotapprovedbytheboardorcreditcommitteewhichwasthepractice,atit

exceededP5,000.00;(e)theloanhadnocollateral;(f)petitionerandJudgePantanosaswere
notpresentatthetimetheloanwasreleasedincontraventionofthebankpractice,and(g)
noticesofdefaultaresentsimultaneouslyandseparatelybutnonoticewasvalidlysenttohim.
[if!supportFootnotes][8][endif]
Finally,petitionercontendsthatinsigningthepromissorynote,hisconsent
wasvitiatedbyfraudas,contrarytotheiragreementthattheloanwasonlyfortheamountof
P5,000.00,thepromissorynotestatedtheamountofP50,000.00.
Theabovestatedpointsareclearlyfactual.Petitioneristoberemindedofthebasicrulethat
thisCourtisnotatrieroffacts.Havinglostthechancetofullyventilatehisfactualclaims
below,petitionermaynolongerbeaccordedthesameopportunityintheabsenceofgrave
abuseofdiscretiononthepartofthecourtbelow.HadhepresentedJudgePantanosas'
affidavitbeforethelowercourt,itwouldhavestrengthenedhisclaimthatthepromissorynote
didnotreflectthecorrectamountoftheloan.
Noristheremeritinpetitioner'sassertionthatsincethepromissorynote"isnotapublicdeed
withtheformalitiesprescribedbylawbutxxxamerecommercialpaperwhichdoesnotbear
thesignatureofxxxattestingwitnesses,"parolevidencemay"overcome"thecontentsofthe
promissorynote.[if!supportFootnotes][9][endif]Thefirstparagraphoftheparolevidencerule[if!supportFootnotes]
[10][endif]
states:
"Whenthetermsofanagreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,itisconsideredascontaining
allthetermsagreeduponandtherecanbe,betweenthepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,
noevidenceofsuchtermsotherthanthecontentsofthewrittenagreement."
Clearly,theruledoesnotspecifythatthewrittenagreementbeapublicdocument.
Whatisrequiredisthatagreementbeinwritingastheruleisinfactfoundedon"long
experiencethatwrittenevidenceissomuchmorecertainandaccuratethanthatwhichrestsin
fleetingmemoryonly,thatitwouldbeunsafe,whenpartieshaveexpressedthetermsoftheir
contractinwriting,toadmitweakerevidencetocontrolandvarythestrongerandtoshowthat
thepartiesintendedadifferentcontractfromthatexpressedinthewritingsignedbythem."[if!
supportFootnotes][11][endif]
Thus,fortheparolevidenceruletoapply,awrittencontractneednotbein
anyparticularform,orbesignedbybothparties.[if!supportFootnotes][12][endif]Asageneralrule,bills,
notesandotherinstrumentsofasimilarnaturearenotsubjecttobevariedorcontradictedby
parolorextrinsicevidence.[if!supportFootnotes][13][endif]
Byallegingfraudinhisanswer,[if!supportFootnotes][14][endif]petitionerwasactuallyintheright
directiontowardsprovingthatheandhiscomakersagreedtoaloanofP5,000.00only
consideringthat,whereaparolcontemporaneousagreementwastheinducingandmoving
causeofthewrittencontract,itmaybeshownbyparolevidence.[if!supportFootnotes][15][endif]However,
fraudmustbeestablishedbyclearandconvincingevidence,merepreponderanceofevidence,
notevenbeingadequate.[if!supportFootnotes][16][endif]Petitioner'sattempttoprovefraudmust,therefore,
failasitwasevidencedonlybyhisownuncorroboratedand,expectedly,selfserving
testimony.
PetitioneralsoarguesthatthedismissalofthecomplaintagainstNaybe,theprincipaldebtor,
andagainstPantanosas,hiscomaker,constitutedareleaseofhisobligation,especially
becausethedismissalofthecaseagainstPantanosaswasuponthemotionofprivate
respondentitself.Hecitesasbasisforhisargument,Article2080oftheCivilCodewhich
providesthat:

"Theguarantors,eventhoughtheybesolidary,arereleasedfromtheirobligationwheneverby
someactofthecreditor,theycannotbesubrogatedtotherights,mortgages,andpreferencesof
thelatter."
Itistobenoted,however,thatpetitionersignedthepromissorynoteasasolidarycomaker
andnotasaguarantor.Thisispatentevenfromthefirstsentenceofthepromissorynote
whichstatesasfollows:
"Ninetyone(91)daysafterdate,forvaluereceived,I/we,JOINTLYandSEVERALLY
promisetopaytothePHILIPPINEBANKOFCOMMUNICATIONSatitsofficeintheCity
ofCagayandeOro,PhilippinesthesumofFIFTYTHOUSANDONLY(P50,000.00)Pesos,
PhilippineCurrency,togetherwithinterestxxxattherateofSIXTEEN(16)percentper
annumuntilfullypaid."
Asolidaryorjointandseveralobligationisoneinwhicheachdebtorisliablefortheentire
obligation,andeachcreditorisentitledtodemandthewholeobligation.[if!supportFootnotes][17][endif]On
theotherhand,Article2047oftheCivilCodestates:
"Byguarantyaperson,calledtheguarantor,bindshimselftothecreditortofulfillthe
obligationoftheprincipaldebtorincasethelattershouldfailtodoso.
Ifapersonbindshimselfsolidarilywiththeprincipaldebtor,theprovisionsofSection4,
Chapter3,TitleIofthisBookshallbeobserved,Insuchacasethecontractiscalleda
suretyship."(Italicssupplied.)
Whileaguarantormaybindhimselfsolidarilywiththeprincipaldebtor,theliabilityofa
guarantorisdifferentfromthatofasolidarydebtor.Thus,Tolentinoexplains:
"Aguarantorwhobindshimselfinsolidumwiththeprincipaldebtorundertheprovisionsof
thesecondparagraphdoesnotbecomeasolidarycodebtortoallintentsandpurposes.There

isadifferencebetweenasolidarycodebtor,andafiadorinsolidum(surety).Thelater,
outsideoftheliabilityheassumestopaythedebtbeforethepropertyoftheprincipaldebtor
hasbeenexhausted,retainsalltheotherrights,actionsandbenefitswhichpertaintohimby
reasonofthefiansa;whileasolidarycodebtorhasnootherrightsthanthosebestowedupon
himinSection4,Chapter3,titleI,BookIVoftheCivilCode."[if!supportFootnotes][18][endif]
Section4,Chapter3,TitleI,BookIVoftheCivilCodestatesthelawonjointandseveral
obligations.UnderArt.1207thereof,whentherearetwoormoredebtorsinoneandthesame
obligation,thepresumptionisthattheobligationisjointsothateachofthedebtorsisliable
onlyforaproportionatepartofthedebt.Thereisasolidarityliabilityonlywhenthe
obligationexpresslysostates,whenthelawsoprovidesorwhenthenatureoftheobligation
sorequires.[if!supportFootnotes][19][endif]
Becausethepromissorynoteinvolvedinthiscaseexpresslystatesthatthethreesignatories
thereinarejointlyandseverallyliable,anyone,someorallofthemmaybeproceededagainst
fortheentireobligation.[if!supportFootnotes][20][endif]Thechoiceislefttothesolidarycreditorto
determineagainstwhomhewillenforcecollection.[if!supportFootnotes][21][endif]Consequently,the
dismissalofthecaseagainstJudgePontanosasmaynotbedeemedashavingdischarged
petitionerfromliabilityaswell.AsregardsNaybe,sufficeittosaythatthecourtnever
acquiredjurisdictionoverhim.Petitioner,therefore,mayonlyhaverecourseagainsthisco
makers,asprovidedbylaw.
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorariisherebyDENIEDand
thequestioneddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Regalado(Chairman),Puno,Mendoza,andTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

You might also like