Professional Documents
Culture Documents
* SECOND DIVISION.
556
557
Same; Same; Same; What is peculiar in the instant case is that the
principal debtors themselves are muddling the issues and raising the same
defenses against the guarantor which only the guarantor may invoke
against the creditor.—The benefit of excussion, as well as the requirement
of consent to extensions of payment, is a protective device pertaining to and
conferred on the guarantor. These may be invoked by the guarantor against
the creditor as defenses to bar the unwarranted enforcement of the
guarantee. However, PhilGuarantee did not avail of these defenses when it
paid its obligation according to the tenor of the guarantee once demand was
made on it. What is peculiar in the instant case is that petitioners, the
principal debtors themselves, are muddling the issues and raising the same
defenses against the guarantor, which only the guarantor may invoke against
the creditor, to avoid payment of their own obligation to the guarantor. The
Court cannot countenance their self-seeking desire to be exonerated from
the duty to reimburse PhilGuarantee after it had
558
559
VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005 559
JN Development Corporation vs. Philippine Export and Foreign
Loan Guarantee Corporation
TINGA, J.:
1
Before us are consolidated petitions questioning the Decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 61318, entitled
Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation v. JN
Development Corporation, et al., which reversed the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 60.
On 13 December 1979, petitioner JN Development Corporation
(“JN”) and Traders Royal Bank (TRB) entered into an agreement
whereby TRB would extend to JN an Export Packing Credit Line for
Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). The loan was 2
covered by
several securities, including a real estate mortgage and a letter of
guarantee from respondent Philippine Export and Foreign Loan
Guarantee Corporation (“PhilGuarantee”), now Trade and
Investment Development Corporation of 3
the Philippines, covering
seventy percent (70%) of the credit
4
line. With PhilGuarantee issuing
a guarantee in favor
5
of TRB, JN, petitioner 6spouses Rodrigo and
Leonor Sta. 7Ana and petitioner Narciso Cruz executed a Deed of
Undertaking (Undertaking) to assure repayment to PhilGuarantee.
It appears that JN failed to pay the loan to TRB upon its maturity;
thus, on 8 October
8
1980 TRB requested PhilGuarantee to make good
its guarantee. PhilGuarantee informed
_______________
560
_______________
561
_______________
16 Id., at p. 415.
17 Ibid.
18 CA Rollo, p. 211.
19 Id., at p. 205.
20 Ibid.
21 Id., at p. 206.
22 Id., at p. 207.
562
_______________
23 Ibid.
24 Art. 2058. The guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the
latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor, and has resorted to all the legal
remedies against the debtor.
25 CA Rollo, pp. 209-210.
26 Id., at p. 209.
27 Resolution dated 12 December 2001, CA Rollo, pp. 305-306.
28 G.R. No. 151060, Rollo, p. 8.
563
_______________
The guarantor who pays for a debtor must be indemnified by the latter.
The indemnity comprises:
564
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
JN Development Corporation vs. Philippine Export and Foreign
Loan Guarantee Corporation
_______________
565
_______________
566
41 People’s Bank and Trust Co. v. Santana, 149 Phil. 169, 174; 42 SCRA 119, 122
(1971).
42 Supra note 40.
43 Art. 2069. If the debt was for a period and the guarantor paid it before it became
due, he cannot demand reimbursement of the debtor until the expiration of the period
unless the payment has been ratified by the debtor.
Art. 2070. If the guarantor has paid without notifying the debtor, and the latter not
being aware of the payment, repeats the payment, the former has no remedy whatever
against the debtor, but only against the creditor. Nevertheless, in case of a gratuitous
guaranty, if the guarantor was prevented by a fortuitous event from advising the
debtor of the payment, and the creditor becomes insolvent, the debtor shall reimburse
the guarantor for the amount paid.
44 Art. 2068. If the guarantor should pay without notifying the debtor, the latter
may enforce against him all the defenses which he could set up against the debtor at
the time the payment was made.
45 G.R. No. 103066, 25 April 1996, 256 SCRA 478, cited in Petitioners’
Memorandum, G.R. No. 151060, Rollo, pp. 268-270.
567
_______________
46 Exhibits, p. 7.
568
The foreclosure was made on 27 August 1993, “after the case was
submitted for decision in 1992 and before 48
the issuance of the
decision of the court a quo in 1998.” Thus, foreclosure was
resorted to by TRB against JN when they both had become aware
that PhilGuarantee had already paid TRB and that there was a
pending case filed by PhilGuarantee against petitioners. This matter
was not raised and proved in the trial court, nor in the appeal before
the CA, but raised for the first time in petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration in the CA. In their appellants’ Brief, petitioners
claimed that “there was no need for the defendant-appellee JNDC to
present any evidence before the lower
49
court to show that indeed
foreclosure of the REM took place.” As properly held by the CA,
_______________
569
_______________
51 Exhibits, p. 71.
570
——o0o——
_______________
52 Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 1161, 1170; 336 SCRA 42, 48 (2000).
53 Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Court of Appeals, et al., 384 Phil. 95, 112;
327 SCRA 359, 374 (2000).
54 Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, supra note 52.
55 Veloso v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 398; 260 SCRA 593 (1996).
571