G.R. No.

L-29588 December 29, 1928

STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CO SIONG, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
------------------------------------
G.R. No. L-29!5" December 29, 1928
ONG G#AN CAN, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK, defendant-appellee.
Powell and Hill for appellant in case No. 29588, and for appellee in case
No. 29753.
Padilla, Trenas and Magalona for appellees in case No. 29588 and for
appellant in case No. 29753.

A$ANCE%A, C. J.:
These two case, 29588 and 29753 were jointly prosecuted in the court
below and only one jud!ent was rendered in both.
"n case 29588, the plaintiff, #tandard $il %o. of &ew 'or(, sued the
defendants, %ho #ion and $n )uan %an, for the a!ount of *2,+97.,2,
with interest, plus *75- as attorney.s fees. The trial court ordered the
defendants %ho #ion and $n )uan %an to pay the plaintiff the a!ount of
*/,.,/, with leal interest fro! the date when the co!plaint was filed until
full pay!ent, plus *2-- by way of attorney.s fees0 and defendant %ho
#ion to pay the plaintiff the su! of *2,+32.9/, with leal interest thereon
fro! the date when the co!plaint was filed until fully paid, plus *5-- as
attorney.s fees.1awphi1.net
$n 1anuary 27, +92/, the plaintiff and defendant %ho #ion entered into a
contract whereby %ho #ion obliated hi!self to sell as aent, plaintiff.s
petroleu! products. 2e uaranteed the fulfil!ent of his obliation by ivin
a personal bond in the su! of *3,---, subscribed by $n )uan %an, and
with the su! of *+,--- in cash which he delivered to the plaintiff, with the
riht to apply it to the pay!ent of any a!ount in which he !iht beco!e
indebted. %ho #ion also bound hi!self to pay such attorney.s fees, costs,
and other e3penses, as !iht be occasioned the plaintiff should it be under
the necessity of filin suit for the recovery of any a!ount to which it !iht
be entitled pursuant to this contract in a su! e4ual to +- per cent of the
a!ount owed.
5y virtue of this contract, %ho #ion received fro! the plaintiff petroleu! to
the value of *+,,+3/.79, and !ade ood to said plaintiff the total a!ount of
*+,,-27.33, thus leavin a balance of */,.,/ in favor of the plaintiff and
aainst the defendant %ho #ion.
5ut it appears that on the sa!e day 61anuary 27, +92/7, when the plaintiff
and defendant %ho #ion entered into the contract to aency and when the
other defendant, $n )uan %an subscribed the *3,--- bond, the
defendant %ho #ion sined an instru!ent in favor of the plaintiff in which
he assu!ed responsibility for all the accounts that !iht be owin to the
plaintiff by the for!er aent, Ton 8uan, and for all oods the latter !iht
have in his possession at the ti!e when the aency was transferred to %ho
#ion. 9ccordin to the plaintiff.s evidence, the a!ount then owed by Ton
8uan was *3,+32.9/. 9ddin */,.,/ to this a!ount, we have the total debt
of *3,+97.,2. :eductin fro! this the *+,--- in cash which %ho #ion
deposited with the plaintiff to be applied upon his liabilities, it leaves a debit
balance of *2,+97.,2 which is the a!ount clai!ed in the co!plaint.
9ccordin to the above, e3cludin the debt of the for!er aent Ton 8uan,
the only balance aainst the defendant %ho #ion on his own contract of
aency with the plaintiff is the su! of */,.,/. #ince the plaintiff has the
*+,--- belonin to the defendant %ho #ion, which !ay be applied to the
pay!ent of the su!s owed by the latter, it follows that, as to %ho #ion.s
aency, he has incurred no liabiliy, for out of the *+,--- deposited with the
plaintiff he still has *935.5, in his favor. %onse4uently, $n )uan %an, as
a surety for those debts which %ho #ion !iht incur upon the contract of
aency, does not answer for anythin, the principal not havin incurred any
liability. "t is plain under the ter!s of the bond sined by $n )uan %an
that he did not answer for %ho #ion, save for the latter.s act by virtue of
the contract of aency. 2e cannot be held liable for the debt of aent Ton
8uan which %ho #ion assu!ed by virtue of another contract of which said
$n )uan %an was not even aware. 9 contract of suretyship is to be
strictly interpreted and is not to be e3tended beyond its ter!s.
The a!ount of *75- for attorney.s fees and court costs, which %ho #ion
bound hi!self to pay to the plaintiff, was areed upon in the contract of
aency, and as %ho #ion did not incur any liability with respect to this
contract he cannot be ordered to pay this su!.
"n the instru!ent by which %ho #ion assu!ed the debt of the for!er
aent, Ton 8uan, no stipulation was !ade as to attorney.s fees and as it
is on this contract that %ho #ion failed to perfor! his obliaion it is also
clear that he is not liable for any a!ount as attorney.s fees.
"n view of the foreoin, the appealed jud!ent is !odified as to case &o.
29588 and the defendant %ho #ion is ordered to pay the plaintiff the
a!ount of *2,+97.,2 only, the other defendant $n )uan %an bein
relieved fro! all liability.
"n case &o. 29753 $n )uan %an clai!s the su! of *+5,--- fro! the
#tandard $il %o., of &ew 'or(. "n the for!er case &o. 29588, the #tandard
$il %o., of &ew 'or( secured a preli!inary attach!et aainst $n )uan
%an, which was levied on so!e of his lands. This attach!ent consisted
si!ply in the annotation thereof in the transfer certificate of tile entered on
&ove!ber +7, +927, which attach!ent was dissolved and the annotation
cancelled on the +9th of the sa!e !onth. The attach!ent, therefore, only
lasted two days. The a!ount of *+5,--- which $n )uan %an clai!s of
the #tandard $il %o., of &ew 'or( is the a!ount of da!aes he allees
were, caused hi! by this attach!ent.
The trial court findin that no da!ae proven to have been suffered by $n
)uan %an on account of said attach!ent, absolved the #tandard $il %o.,
of &ew 'or( fro! this clai! in case &o. 29753.
;ithout considerin the other 4uestion raised in this case, and acceptin
the trial court.s conclusions that no da!ae was occasioned $n )uan
%an by said attach!ent which only lasted two days, the jud!ent appealed
fro! is affir!ed, with costs aainst the appellant. #o ordered.