[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
95 views1 page

Inchiong Vs CA

Rene Naybe took out a loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC) and executed a promissory note along with Baldomero Inciong, Jr. and Gregorio Pantanosas as co-makers. When the note went unpaid, PBC sued the three but later released Pantanosas and dropped the case against Naybe who left for Saudi Arabia. Inciong argued he should be released too. The Court held that Inciong signed as a solidary co-maker, not a guarantor, so the dismissal of others did not release his liability. As a solidary co-maker, PBC could enforce collection against any or all of the signatories for the

Uploaded by

sarah abutazil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
95 views1 page

Inchiong Vs CA

Rene Naybe took out a loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC) and executed a promissory note along with Baldomero Inciong, Jr. and Gregorio Pantanosas as co-makers. When the note went unpaid, PBC sued the three but later released Pantanosas and dropped the case against Naybe who left for Saudi Arabia. Inciong argued he should be released too. The Court held that Inciong signed as a solidary co-maker, not a guarantor, so the dismissal of others did not release his liability. As a solidary co-maker, PBC could enforce collection against any or all of the signatories for the

Uploaded by

sarah abutazil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Baldomero Inciong, Jr.

vs
Court of Appeals
257 SCRA 578 Mercantile Law Negotiable Instruments in General Signature of Makers
Guaranty
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 cant 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 codebtor 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 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 (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.

You might also like