Inciong Vs Ca Digest 226e4g

BALDOMERO INCIONG, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, respondents. FACTS: In February 1983, Rene Naybe took out a loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC) in the amount of P50k. For that he executed a promissory note in the same amount. Naybe was able to convince Baldomero Inciong, Jr. and Gregorio Pantanosas to co-sign with him as co-makers. The promissory note went due and it was left unpaid. PBC demanded payment from the three but still no payment was made. PBC then sue the three but PBC later released Pantanosas from its obligations. Naybe left for Saudi Arabia hence can’t be issued summons and the complaint against him was subsequently dropped. Inciong was left to face the suit. He argued that that since the complaint against Naybe was dropped, and that Pantanosas was released from his obligations, he too should have been released. ISSUE: Whether or not Inciong should be held liable. HELD: Yes. Inciong is considering himself as a guarantor in the promissory note. And he was basing his argument based on Article 2080 of the Civil Code which provides that guarantors are released from their obligations if the creditors shall release their debtors. It is to be noted however that Inciong did not sign the promissory note as a guarantor. He signed it as a solidary co-maker. A guarantor who binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor does not become a solidary co-debtor to all intents and purposes. There is a difference between a solidary co-debtor and a fiador in solidum (surety). The latter, outside of the liability he assumes to pay the debt before the property of the principal debtor has been exhausted, retains all the other rights, actions and benefits which pertain to him by reason of the fiansa; while a solidary co-debtor has no other rights than those bestowed upon him. Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three signatories therein are tly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor (PBC) to determine against whom he will enforce collection. Consequently, the dismissal of the case against Pontanosas may not be deemed as having discharged Inciong from liability as well. As regards Naybe, suffice it to say that the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. Inciong, therefore, may only have recourse against his co-makers, as provided by law.

FACTS: Petitioner Baldomero Inchiong, Jr. is one of the signatory of apromissory note in the amount of Php. 50,000.00 that resulted to his present liability with Rene C. Naybe and Gregorio D. Pantanosas which hold themselves tly and severally liable to private respondent Philipine Bank of Communocations. Said promissory note was due on May 5, 1983 without the promissory having paid their obligation. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY THE OBLIGATION PROVIDED IN THE PROMISSORY NOTE AS TLY AND SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH NAYBE AND PONTANOSAS TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATION. RULING: Yes. Petitioner is liable up to the extent of the provision under the promissory note and for being one of the three signatories therein as “tly and solidarilly liable.” Any one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. Pontanosas consequent dismissal of the said case does not deemed him as having discharged petitioner from liability. And with regards to Naybe, the court have never obtained jurisdiction over him. Thus, petitioner may only have recourse against his co-makers, as provided by law. N.B. The promissory note "is not a public deed with the formalities prescribed by law but . . . a mere commercial paper which does not bear the signature of . . . attesting witnesses," parol evidence may "overcome" the contents of the promissory note. 9 The first paragraph of the parol evidence rule 10 states: When the of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such other than the contents of the written agreement. Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document. What is required is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded on "long experience that written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only, that it would be unsafe, when parties have expressed the of their contract in writing, to it weaker evidence to control and vary the stronger and to show that the parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the writing signed by them." 11 Thus, for the parol evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or be signed by both parties. 12 As a general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parol or extrinsic evidence.

Inciong, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals Co-maker (D) vs. Creditor (P) GR 96405

[T]

Summary: A co-maker to a loan is facing collection demands from a creditor bank. One of his co-defendant is outside the Philippine jurisdiction while the creditor chose to dismiss their claim against the other. Rule of Law: In solidary obligations, any one, some or all of the debtors may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. Facts: Baldomero Inciong, Jr. (D) cosigned a P50,000-promissory note with Rene Naybe and Gregorio Pantanosas holding themselves tly and severally liable to creditor Philippine Bank of Communications (P)—PBCOM, Cagayan de Oro City branch. The due date expired without the promissors paying their obligation. Consequently, creditor PBCOM (P) demanded payment from the obligors who did not respond. So, creditor PBCOM (P) filed for collection of the sum of P50,000.00 against the three obligors. The complaint was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the case, but the lower court reconsidered and the summonses were eventually served. As prayed for by PBCOM (P), the lower court dismissed the case against defendant Pantanosas. With co-defendant Naybe in Saudi Arabia, only the summons to co-maker Inciong (D) was duly served. Inciong (D) contended that he only agreed to limit his liability to P5,000 and that his consent was vitiated by fraud. On appeal, he annexed to his petition an affidavit ing his claim of fraud. Issues: Can the creditor file a claim for the entire obligation against a co-maker to a loan? Ruling: Yes. Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three signatories therein are tly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. Consequently, the dismissal of the case against co-defendant Pantanosas may not be deemed as having discharged petitioner from liability. As regards co-defendant Naybe, suffice it to say that the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. Therefore, PBCOM (P) only have recourse against his co-makers, as provided by law.

Inciong (D) signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor. A solidary or t and several obligation is one in which each debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation. —Tolention, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1991, p. 217. On the other hand, Article 2047 of the Civil Code states: By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such a case the contract is called a suretyship. Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code states the law on t and several obligations. When there are two or more debtors in one and the same obligation, the presumption is that the obligation is t so that each of the debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires. —Article 1207 of the New Civil Code