Title
Asset Builders Corporation vs. Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 187116
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2010
ABC contracted Lucky Star for a construction project, backed by Stronghold's bonds. Upon Lucky Star's default, ABC rescinded the contract and sued for damages. The Supreme Court ruled Stronghold jointly liable, affirming that rescission does not cancel surety bonds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187116)

Contractual Agreement and Obligations

On April 28, 2006, ABC and Lucky Star entered into a contract for drilling one exploratory production well as part of the commercial complex project, with a total contract price of PHP 1,150,000. The terms required a 50% downpayment upon submission of a surety bond equal to the downpayment and a performance bond equal to 30% of the contract price. Lucky Star was given 60 calendar days for completion, with a stipulated penalty of 0.2% of the contract amount per day of delay. Lucky Star furnished two bonds from Stronghold as security: a Surety Bond for PHP 575,000 and a Performance Bond for PHP 345,000.

Surety and Performance Bonds Terms

The Surety Bond guaranteed the repayment of the downpayment through deductions should Lucky Star fail to perform. This bond was callable on demand, with liability capped at PHP 575,000, effective until May 9, 2007. The Performance Bond secured the contractor’s faithful compliance with the contractual terms, with a liability limit of PHP 345,000 inclusive of damages and attorney’s fees. The Performance Bond also recognized the right of third parties supplying labor or materials to enforce claims directly.

Facts Leading to Rescission and Claims

Lucky Star received an advance payment of PHP 575,000 on May 20, 2006, and began drilling work. By July 18, 2006, shortly before the contract deadline, only 10% of the work was completed. ABC issued a demand letter for immediate completion and threatened contract cancellation and bond forfeiture. On August 3, 2006, ABC formally rescinded the contract, demanding a refund of the downpayment, liquidated damages, payment under the performance bond, consequential and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. ABC subsequently sent a notice of claim to Stronghold on August 16, 2006, but received no response, prompting ABC to file a complaint for rescission with damages on November 21, 2006.

Trial Court’s Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, absolved Stronghold of liability, ruling that the surety and performance bonds were accessory contracts dependent on the principal contract. The RTC held that rescission of the principal contract automatically canceled the bonds. The court ordered Lucky Star to pay ABC PHP 575,000 plus damages but dismissed Stronghold’s liability and its counterclaims.

Issues on Appeal

ABC petitioned for review, contesting the RTC’s finding that the bonds were automatically canceled upon rescission. ABC argued that (a) a valid principal obligation still existed despite contract rescission due to Lucky Star’s default; (b) the surety’s liability had already accrued and became direct and absolute upon principal’s breach, independent of contract rescission; and (c) rescission did not extinguish Stronghold’s bond liabilities.

Applicable Law: Suretyship under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and New Civil Code

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Article 2047 of the New Civil Code, a surety binds itself solidarily with the principal obligor to guarantee the latter’s performance. The surety’s obligation, although secondary and accessory, is nonetheless direct, primary, and absolute once the principal defaults. The surety assumes responsibility for the debt or duty inherent in the principal contract, even without personal interest or benefit.

Court’s Legal Analysis on Surety’s Liability

The Supreme Court emphasized that although the surety contract depends on the existence of a valid principal obligation, it becomes enforceable upon the principal’s default. Lucky Star’s failure to complete the work within the agreed period constituted non-performance, thus activating Stronghold’s liability under the bonds. The clause “this bond is callable on demand” further confirmed the surety’s direct accountability. The Court recognized that a creditor may proceed against any or all solidary debtors (Article 1216, New Civil Code), including the surety.

Rejection of Automatic Cancellat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.