Case Summary (G.R. No. 17322)
Factual Background
The case arises from the execution of certain bonds at the special instance and request of the defendants, allowing for the delivery of imported goods to them. The plaintiff alleges that these bonds were necessary for the release of goods from the Bureau of Customs, accompanied by a guarantee for payment of related charges amounting to P74,500. The plaintiff also asserts that the defendants committed fraud and deceit to induce the issuance of these bonds, claiming the bills of lading for the goods were not present in the Philippines, despite being aware that they were.
Procedural History
The defendants Jing Kee & Co., Teng Kim Kuy, and Teng Kim Tong filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. In contrast, the remaining defendants did not contest the plaintiff's claim and consented to a judgment, effectively admitting their liability. The trial court ruled against the non-consenting defendants and awarded the plaintiff P74,500, along with interest. Following the judgment, the remaining defendants sought a new trial, which was denied, leading to their appeal.
Joint and Several Liability
The bonds in question established a joint and several liability among the defendants. The court clarified that, under the terms of the bonds, all defendants were equally liable for the entire amount of the judgment, meaning that the plaintiff could seek full recovery from any one or more of the defendants. This principle of joint and several liability emphasizes that the liability of the partnerships and individuals is interconnected and does not relieve one defendant from responsibility due to the judgment against others.
Authorization of Counsel
The court noted that the authorized attorney for the defendants, DeWitt, represented them fully during the proceedings. There was no assertion of fraud or collusion in his representation, nor was there any challenge to his authority to consent to the judgment on behalf of the other defendants. As a member of the copartnership, Teng Kim Kuy is bound by the actions of his firm and cannot contest the consent to judgment rendered by an authorized agent.
Appeal and Court Ruling
The appealing defendants argued the trial court erred by ruling on the merits of the case while their demurrer was still under consideration. However, the court found that the consent judgment against some defe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 17322)
Case Citation
- Citation: 42 Phil. 690
- G.R. No.: 17322
- Date: January 12, 1922
Parties Involved
Plaintiff: The Union Guarantee Co., Ltd.
- A corporation organized under the laws of the Philippine Islands.
- Principal office located in Manila.
- Engaged in the business of surety and indemnity bonds.
Defendants:
- Aw Yong Chiow Soo & Tee (Teng) Kim Kuy: A copartnership registered in the Philippine Islands, doing business under the name Koon Kee.
- Koon Kee & Co.: Another copartnership composed of Aw Yong Chiow Soo, Tee (Teng) Kim Kuy, and Teng Kim Tong, also registered in the Philippines.
- Jing Kee & Co.: A partnership organized under Japanese laws, operating in both Japan and Manila, composed of Teng Kim Kuy and Teng Kim Tong.
- Teng Kim Kuy: A resident of Japan.
- Teng Kim Tong: A resident of Manila.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff executed certain bonds at the request of the defendants for the Bureau of Customs in Manila.
- These bonds were necessary for the delivery of goods consigned to the defendants from foreign ports.
- Plaintiff also guaranteed payment for wharfage, arrastre, and storage charges related to the imports.
Aw Yong Chiow Soo acted as the authorized agent for all defendants, making written applications for the issuance of bonds.
Total bond amount executed was P70,000, with P4,500 specifically guaranteeing advanced charges.
Despite the bills of lading being in the Philippines, the defendants f