Title
Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-12333
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1959
Plaintiff sought cancellation of surety bonds due to alleged breaches of conditions by the milling company, alleging violations in loan grants and harvest application, while also pursuing indemnity from Ruiz and Dizon.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12333)

Relevant Facts

The facts underpinning the complaint indicate that defendant Sixto R. Ruiz obtained two crop loans totaling P11,626.00 from Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. The plaintiff executed two surety bonds amounting to P2,956.50 as a guarantee for the payment of 25% of these loans. The bonds were subject to specific conditions, including the obligation of the milling company to apply the debtor's share of the crop harvest towards the payment of the loans, not to offer additional loans without the consent of the surety, and that the liability of the surety would cease upon complete payment of the guaranteed loans.

Allegations of Breach

The plaintiff contended that Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. violated the conditions of the surety bonds by extending loans exceeding the debtor's share in the crop harvest without obtaining prior written consent from the plaintiff and failing to notify the plaintiff regarding the amounts availed of by the debtor. These breaches led the plaintiff to assert that it should be freed from its obligations under the surety bonds.

Alternate Cause of Action

Additionally, the complaint presented an alternative cause of action based on an indemnity agreement between defendant Sixto R. Ruiz and defendant Raymundo D. Dizon, where they agreed to indemnify the plaintiff against any losses incurred from executing the surety bonds. The plaintiff argued that the milling company had informed them of an outstanding amount owed by Ruiz, necessitating action from the plaintiff to protect its interests.

Motion to Dismiss

In response, the milling company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it did not state a cause of action since the plaintiff had not alleged that it had been required to pay the guaranteed obligation. They argued that the alleged breaches were merely defenses available to the plaintiff if a demand for payment was made, which led the trial court to grant this motion and dismiss the case.

Appeal and Court's Findings

In appealing the dismissal, the Court analyzed the lower court's reasoning and found merit in the appeal. It was determined that the purpose of the action was not fundamentally about disputing any assumed obligation to make payments but rather a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.