Title
Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-22366
Decision Date
Oct 30, 1969
Jose Robles borrowed P25,000, secured by ALTO's bond. Robles defaulted; ALTO sued Guerrero under counter-guaranty. SC ruled Guerrero liable, no novation, ALTO's action valid, no waiver.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22366)

Applicable Law

The decision in this case is made under the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines with a focus on contracts, particularly indemnity and obligations arising from guarantee agreements. The relevant contractual relationships draw on principles of liability and the effects of novation.

Background of the Obligations

In September 1963, Jose Robles borrowed ₱25,000 from Chan Too. To ensure the payment of this loan, Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. executed a bond in favor of Chan Too, thereby assuming joint liability with Robles. In consideration for the bond, Robles and other guarantors, including Rodolfo Guerrero, executed a "Counter-Guaranty Agreement" which bound them to indemnify Alto for potential losses arising from the bond.

Judicial Proceedings and Default

Following Robles' default in repaying Chan Too, the latter filed a civil case against both Robles and Alto in the Court of First Instance of Manila. A compromise agreement reached in this case concluded with a judgment recognizing Robles' liability and setting terms for repayment. When Robles subsequently failed to fulfill these obligations, Alto initiated another action against Guerrero, seeking to recover amounts owed under the counter-guaranty agreement.

Court Decisions and Amendments

The initial judgment favored Alto, ordering Guerrero to pay a total amount that included the principal obligation, accrued interest, and attorney's fees. This judgment was later amended to clarify the amount owed, yet it was ultimately upheld by the Court of Appeals, which erroneously affirmed the original unamended decision.

Arguments Presented by Guerrero

Guerrero’s primary argument rested on the assertion that the compromise agreement in the previous case extinguished his obligations under the counter-guaranty due to novation. He contended that since ALTO entered into the compromise with Robles and Chan Too, it waived its rights against him.

Examination of Novation Defense

The Court determined that Guerrero was not a party to the civil case between Chan Too and Robles where the compromise agreement was executed. The only parties bound by that agreement were Chan Too, Robles, and Alto. Consequently, Guerrero's claim of novation was unsupported. The nature of the counter-guaranty agreement necessitated indemnification upon demand, independent of whether Alto had made actual payment to Chan Too.

Legal Principles Discussed

The court emphasized the difference between indemnity against liability and indemnity against loss. The obligation of Guerrero to indemnify arose immediately upon

...continue reading

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