BALDOMERO INCIONG, JR.

, petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.
FACTS: In February 1983, Rene Naybe took out a loan from Philippine Bank of
Communications (PBC) in the amount of P50k. For that he executed a promissory note in the
same amount. Naybe was able to convince Baldomero Inciong, Jr. and Gregorio Pantanosas to
co-sign with him as co-makers. The promissory note went due and it was left unpaid. PBC
demanded payment from the three but still no payment was made. PBC then sue the three but
PBC later released Pantanosas from its obligations. Naybe left for Saudi Arabia hence cant be
issued summons and the complaint against him was subsequently dropped. Inciong was left to
face the suit. He argued that that since the complaint against Naybe was dropped, and that
Pantanosas was released from his obligations, he too should have been released.
ISSUE: Whether or not Inciong should be held liable.
HELD: Yes. Inciong is considering himself as a guarantor in the promissory note. And he was
basing his argument based on Article 2080 of the Civil Code which provides that guarantors are
released from their obligations if the creditors shall release their debtors. It is to be noted
however that Inciong did not sign the promissory note as a guarantor. He signed it as a solidary
co-maker.
A guarantor who binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor does not become a solidary
co-debtor to all intents and purposes. There is a difference between a solidary co-debtor and
a fiador in solidum (surety). The latter, outside of the liability he assumes to pay the debt before
the property of the principal debtor has been exhausted, retains all the other rights, actions and
benefits which pertain to him by reason of the fiansa; while a solidary co-debtor has no other
rights than those bestowed upon him.
Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three signatories
therein are jointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be proceeded against
for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor (PBC) to determine against
whom he will enforce collection. Consequently, the dismissal of the case against Pontanosas
may not be deemed as having discharged Inciong from liability as well. As regards Naybe,
suffice it to say that the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. Inciong, therefore, may only
have recourse against his co-makers, as provided by law.

FACTS:
Petitioner Baldomero Inchiong, Jr. is one of the signatory of apromissory note in the
amount of Php. 50,000.00 that resulted to his present liability with Rene C. Naybe and Gregorio
D. Pantanosas which hold themselves jointly and severally liable to private respondent Philipine
Bank of Communocations. Said promissory note was due on May 5, 1983 without the
promissory having paid their obligation.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY THE OBLIGATION
PROVIDED IN THE PROMISSORY NOTE AS JOINTLY AND SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH
NAYBE AND PONTANOSAS TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATION.
RULING:
Yes.
Petitioner is liable up to the extent of the provision under the promissory note and for
being one of the three signatories therein as jointly and solidarilly liable. Any one, some or all
of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary
creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection.
Pontanosas consequent dismissal of the said case does not deemed him as having
discharged petitioner from liability. And with regards to Naybe, the court have never obtained
jurisdiction over him. Thus, petitioner may only have recourse against his co-makers, as
provided by law.
N.B.
The promissory note "is not a public deed with the formalities prescribed by law but . . . a mere commercial paper
which does not bear the signature of . . . attesting witnesses," parol evidence may "overcome" the contents of the
promissory note. 9 The first paragraph of the parol evidence rule 10 states:
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed
upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.
Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document.
What is required is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded on "long experience that written
evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only, that it would be
unsafe, when parties have expressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit weaker evidence to control and
vary
the
stronger
and
to
show
that
the
parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the writing signed by them." 11 Thus, for the parol
evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or be signed by both parties. 12 As a
general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by
parol or extrinsic evidence.

Inciong, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

Co-maker (D) vs. Creditor (P)
GR 96405

[T]

Summary: A co-maker to a loan is facing collection demands from a creditor bank. One of his
co-defendant is outside the Philippine jurisdiction while the creditor chose to dismiss their claim
against the other.
Rule of Law: In solidary obligations, any one, some or all of the debtors may be proceeded
against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor to determine against
whom he will enforce collection.
Facts: Baldomero Inciong, Jr. (D) cosigned a P50,000-promissory note with Rene Naybe and
Gregorio Pantanosas holding themselves jointly and severally liable to creditor Philippine Bank
of Communications (P)PBCOM, Cagayan de Oro City branch.
The due date expired without the promissors paying their obligation. Consequently, creditor
PBCOM (P) demanded payment from the obligors who did not respond. So, creditor PBCOM
(P) filed for collection of the sum of P50,000.00 against the three obligors.
The complaint was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the case, but the lower court
reconsidered and the summonses were eventually served. As prayed for by PBCOM (P), the
lower court dismissed the case against defendant Pantanosas. With co-defendant Naybe in Saudi
Arabia, only the summons to co-maker Inciong (D) was duly served.
Inciong (D) contended that he only agreed to limit his liability to P5,000 and that his consent was
vitiated by fraud. On appeal, he annexed to his petition an affidavit supporting his claim of fraud.
Issues: Can the creditor file a claim for the entire obligation against a co-maker to a loan?
Ruling: Yes. Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three
signatories therein are jointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be
proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor to determine
against whom he will enforce collection.
Consequently, the dismissal of the case against co-defendant Pantanosas may not be deemed as
having discharged petitioner from liability. As regards co-defendant Naybe, suffice it to say that
the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. Therefore, PBCOM (P) only have recourse
against his co-makers, as provided by law.

Inciong (D) signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor.
A solidary or joint and several obligation is one in which each debtor is liable for the entire
obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation.
Tolention, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1991, p. 217.
On the other hand, Article 2047 of the Civil Code states:
By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation
of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so.
If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter
3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such a case the contract is called a suretyship.
Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code states the law on joint and several
obligations.
When there are two or more debtors in one and the same obligation, the presumption is that the
obligation is joint so that each of the debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt.
There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so
provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires.
Article 1207 of the New Civil Code