Title
Philippine Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Royal Oil Products, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-9981
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1957
Royal Oil sued Philippine Surety for unpaid bond after employee Perfecto defaulted. Court ruled surety liable, upheld damages, and clarified RA 487 inapplicable to surety bonds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11271)

Court Decisions and Findings

The Court of First Instance found that the Philippine Surety was liable to pay Royal Oil P10,000, plus interest and attorney's fees, due to the defaults of Monico Perfecto, a salesman employed by Royal Oil. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision with slight modifications, reducing the attorney's fees and exemplary damages. The Philippine Surety sought appellate review by certiorari, raising multiple assignments of error pertaining to its liability under the bond it issued for Perfecto.

Employment Contract and Surety Bond

Monico Perfecto was employed by Royal Oil as a salesman under a one-year contract that required him to manage sales and collections within specific territories. To secure his obligations, he executed a surety bond for P10,000, which the Philippine Surety issued. The bond stipulated that it would remain in effect as long as the employment contract was active.

Allegations of Default

The crux of the dispute revolves around allegations that Royal Oil continued to employ Perfecto despite his defaults and defalcations, specifically failing to meet collection responsibilities tied to sales on credit. The Philippine Surety argued that Royal Oil's failure to notify them of these issues should release them from liability under the bond.

Court's Analysis on Notification and Liability

The appellate court found no obligation for Royal Oil to inform the Philippine Surety of Perfecto’s defaults, and determined that the surety bond lacked provisions requiring such notification. The ruling emphasized that Royal Oil had acted based on Perfecto's assurances to resolve the defaulted accounts, thereby validating its continued employment and dealings with him.

Discussion on Republic Act No. 487

A significant issue discussed was whether Republic Act No. 487, which governs insurance claims, was applicable to the surety bond issued by the Philippine Surety. The court ultimately ruled that the provisions of this Act did not pertain to surety bonds, emphasizing that surety and insurance contracts, though related, possess distinct legal implications. The Act’s intent primarily targeted traditional insurance companies rather than surety companies.

Assessment of Damages and Fees

While the court acknowledged the Royal Oil’s entitlement to damages and attorney's fees, it determined the statutory rate of interest applicable to the bond claim would be reduced from 12% to 6%. The court affirmed the reduced awards for attorney's fees and exemplary damages, noting that the conduct of the Philippine Surety involved dilatory tactics and unjustified refusal to honor its obligations.

Conduct of Philippine Surety

The ruling scrutinized the Philippine Surety's lack of prompt action in addressing valid

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.