Facts:
Macondray & Company, Inc. v. Perfecto Pinon, et al., G.R. No. L-13817, August 31, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff-appellee
Macondray & Company, Inc. sued the defendants —
Perfecto Pinon and
Conrado Piring (doing business as All Stars Productions) as principal debtors, and
Ruperto K. Kangleon as guarantor — in the Court of First Instance of Manila for P6,985 plus interest and attorney’s fees, based on credit sales of cinematographic films made on 2 and 9 February 1954 and payable on or before 9 May 1954 (Civil No. 23947). Kangleon had written a letter dated 30 January 1954 (Exhibit F) introducing Pinon and Piring and stating “for which by their guaranty I pledge payment.” The principals failed to pay on maturity and Macondray, after unsuccessful efforts to locate assets, demanded payment from Kangleon by letters of 27 May and 2 June 1954; Kangleon replied on 31 May 1954 acknowledging contact with the principals and asserting an alleged extension of time granted them.
Kangleon answered denying liability on several grounds: that Exhibit F was merely an introduction/offer to guarantee whose acceptance was not communicated to him, and that any guaranty was extinguished by an extension of time allegedly granted the principals; he also counterclaimed for injury to reputation. Pinon and Piring did not answer and were declared in default. The parties (plaintiff and Kangleon) entered into a stipulation of facts and the plaintiff also presented testimonial and documentary evidence against the defaulting principals at trial. The trial court, on 30 September 1957, rendered judgment against Pinon and Piring for P6,985 plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs, and provided that “If this judgment becomes unsatisfied by the defendants Perfecto Pinon and Conrado Piring, the defendant Ruperto Kangleon is hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiff all the amount to which his co-defendants were sentenced to pay.” Kangleon appealed.
During the appeal Kangleon died and his heirs were substituted as appellants. The Supreme Court considered wh...
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does an admission or stipulation by the guarantor bind the principal debtors in default and was the plaintiff’s case against the principals sufficiently established?
- Did Exhibit F constitute a binding contract of guaranty such that notice of acceptance by the creditor was required?
- Did the variations between the articles and payment date described in Exhibit F and the goods actually sold (quantity/price and payment date) relieve the guarantor from liabi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: