Facts:

• The case is Pangasinan Province vs. Viloria et al. (G.R. No. 35688), decided on April 5, 1932.
• The dispute involved a contract between the Province of Pangasinan and contractor Viloria, who was engaged in a public works project.
• The contractor failed to meet his contractual obligations.
• The provincial government sought recourse against both the contractor and the sureties.
• The lower court ruled in favor of the Province of Pangasinan, holding the sureties liable for the contractor's default.
• The sureties contested the ruling, claiming that if the principal (contractor) was no longer liable, they should also be released from their obligations.
• The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for review.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the sureties, reversing the lower court's judgment.
• The Court determined that if recourse against ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The decision was based on the principle of suretyship, which states that a surety's obligation is secondary to that of the principal.
• The loss of recourse against the principal contractor meant that the sureties could not be held liable for the contractor's failure to perform.
• The Court emphasized that a surety's liability depends on the principal's liability; if the pr...continue reading