Inciong v CA; G.R. No. 96405; 26 Jun 1996; 257 SCRA 578

FACTS:
Petitioner signed a promissory note with two others holding themselves jointly and severally liable to respondent bank. When petitioner and another obligor failed to respond to respondent bank’s demand for payment, an action for collection of money was filed against all three promisors.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not petitioner was a guarantor.

RULING:
NO. Petitioner signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor. This is patent even from the first sentence of the promissory note which states:

Ninety one (91) days after date, for value received, I/We, JOINTLY and SEVERALLY promise to pay to the PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS at its office in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY (P50,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, together with interest . . . at the rate of SIXTEEN (16) per cent per annum until fully paid.

Because the promissory note expressly states that the three signatories therein are jointly 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.

Tags: , , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *