SECURITY PACIFIC v.

TRIA-INFANTE (JUDGE), SPOUSES ANZURES

Anzures filed a complaint agains Villaluz for violation of BP 22.
An Ex-Parte Motion for Preliminary Attachment was filed by Anzures
praying that pending the hearing on the merits of the case, a Writ of
Preliminary Attachment be issued ordering the sheriff to attach the
properties of Villaluz in accordance with the Rules.
RTC acquitted Villaluz and declared that the liability is merely civil. Villaluz
appealed, CA affirmed, Villaluz appealed again, but this time posted a
counter-bond issued by Security Pacific in the amount of 2.5M.
SC affirmed the decision of CA. Anzures moved for the execution of
judgment, but Villaluz was nowhere to be found. He moved against
Security Pacific.
ISSUE: is Pacific liable?
PETITIONER: The attachment of the properties was not discharged by the
filing of the counter-bond, so our liability did not accrue.
RULING: YES, petitioner is liable. During the pendency of this petition, a
counter-attachment bond was filed by petitioner Villaluz before this Court to
discharge the attachment earlier issued by the trial court. Said bond
amounting to P2.5 million was furnished by Security Pacific Assurance,
Corp. which agreed to bind itself “jointly and severally” with petitioner for
“any judgment” that may be recovered by private respondent against the
former.
***ilang beses na ata naulit to: suretyship is a contractual relation resulting
from an agreement whereby one person, the surety, engages to be
answerable for the debt, default or miscarriage of another, known as the
principal. The surety’s obligation is not an original and direct one for the
performance of his own act, but merely accessory or collateral to the
obligation contracted by the principal. Nevertheless, although the contract
of a surety is in essence secondary only to a valid principal obligation, his
liability to the creditor or promise of the principal is said to be direct, primary
and absolute; in other words, he is directly and equally bound with the
principal. The surety therefore becomes liable for the debt or duty of
another although he possesses no direct or personal interest over the
obligations nor does he receive any benefit therefrom.

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURACE CORP. (PCIC) VS. PETROLEUM

DISTRIBUTORS AND SERVICE CORP. (PDSC)
PDSC entered into a construction agreement with Francia Construction
Corporation (FCC), for the construction of a “park n’ fly” building amounting
to 45M. The agreement contained a stipulation that in case there is a delay
in the schedule of construction, FCC shall be liable to pay 1% of the
contract price per day of delay. To ensure faithful compliance, FCC
procured a performance bond amounting to 6.8M from PCIC to secure full
and faithful performance of its obligation under the Building Contract.
FCC delayed in the schedule. The damages amounted to 9M. PDSC sent
notices to FCC and PCIC, but the 2 did not reply. PDSC filed a case
against both of them.
ISSUE: is PCIC liable?
PCIC: the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement that the
schedule of construction is going to be changed, our liability is extinguished
since the parties are entering into a new contract.
RULING: PCIC is liable. A surety is liable in case the principal promisor
failed to comply with his obligation, in this case, the obligation to construct
the building by FCC was not complied with, and since PCIC is a surety in
said contract, PCIC is therefore liable.
However the liability in this case was reduced since FCC offered chattel
mortgages to secure the obligation, then the 45M cost was reduced due to
outsourcing.
INFRA-STRATA ASSURANCE CORP AND PHILIPPINE HOME
ASSURANCE CORP. VS REPUBLIC AND BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
Grand Textile is a local manufacturing corporation importing goods. The
goods GT imported is stored in a bonded warehouse. Before withdrawing
the goods, GT must pay for custom dues, taxes and other fees. Intra-Strata
and PhilHome each issued general warehousing bonds in favor of the
Bureau of Customs. These bonds, the terms of which are fully quoted
below, commonly provide 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."
GT withdrew the goods without paying the dues. BoC demanded payment
from GT, INFRA, and PHILHOME. RTC rules in favor of republic, CA
affirmed.
ISSUE: is INFRA and PhilHome liable?
RULING: YES, they are sureties in this case. (paulit-ulit naman yung mga
ruling pag dating dito, ieexplain yung suretyship etc…)
ISSUE 2: whether notice to the bondsman is required in case the principal
defaulted.
RULING2: NO. Demand on the surety is not necessary before bringing the
suit against them. On this point, it may be worth mentioning that a surety is
not even entitled, as a matter of right, to be given notice of the principal’s
default. Inasmuch as the creditor owes no duty of active diligence to take
care of the interest of the surety, his mere failure to voluntarily give
information to the surety of the default of the principal cannot have the
effect of discharging the surety. The surety is bound to take notice of the
principal’s default and to perform the obligation. He cannot complain that
the creditor has not notified him in the absence of a special agreement to
that effect in the contract of suretyship.