Case Digest
2
JN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION FACTS: Petitioner JN Development Corporation and Traders Royal Bank entered into an agreemen that the latter would extend to JN an Export Paking Credit !ine "or Two #illion Pesos. Th was overed $y several seurities% inluding a real estate mortgage and a letter of !arantee fro" re#$ondent P%&l&$$&ne E'$ort and Fore&n Loan G!arantee Cor$orat&on( )o*er&n #e*ent+ $er)ent ,-./0 of t%e )red&t l&ne1 2&t% P%&lG!arantee &##!&n a !arantee &n fa*or of TR31 &or "ailure o" petitioner JN to pay upon maturity% Phil'uarantee was made to (hen JN "ailed to reim$urse the latter% respondent Phil'uarantee )led a Complaint "or oll o" money and damages against herein petitioners. The RTC dismissed Phil'uarantee*s Complaint as well as the ounterlaim o" petitione ruled that petitioners are not lia$le to reim$urse Phil'uarantee what it had paid to TRB s latter was a$le to "orelose the real estate mortgage exeuted $y JN% thus ex petitioners* o$ligation. ,ording to the RTC% the "ailure o" TRB to sue JN "or the reove loan preludes Phil'uarantee "rom seeking reoupment "rom what it paid to TRB. Thus% Phil'uarantee*s payment to TRB amounts to a waiver o" its right under ,rt. - /0 o" the Civ Code. ISSUE: (1N petitioner is still lia$le to indemni"y the guarantor despite the latt waiving its right to exussion2 HELD: 3es. The Court held that Phil'uarantee*s waiver o" the right o" exussion annot pre "rom demanding reim$ursement "rom petitioners. The law learly re4uires the de$tor t indemni"y the guarantor what the latter has paid.5nder a ontrat o" guarantee% the guaran $inds himsel" to the reditor to "ul)ll the o$ligation o" the prinipal de$tor in ase the should "ail to do so. T%e !arantor 4%o $a+# for a de5tor( &n t!rn( "!#t 5e &nde"n&6ed 5+ t%e latter . Ho4e*er( t%e !arantor )annot 5e )o"$elled to $a+ t%e )red&tor !nle## t%e latter %a# e'%a!#ted all t%e $ro$ert+ of t%e de5tor and re#orted to all t%e leal re"ed&e# aa&n#t t%e de5tor . This is what is otherwise known as the $ene)t o" e')!##&on .
Transcript of Case Digest
JN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATIONFACTS:Petitioner JN Development Corporation and Traders Royal Bank entered into an agreement that the latter would extend to JN an Export Packing Credit Line for Two Million Pesos. The loan was covered by several securities, including a real estate mortgage and a letter of guarantee from respondent Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, covering seventy percent (70%) of the credit line. With PhilGuarantee issuing a guarantee in favor of TRB. For failure of petitioner JN to pay upon maturity, PhilGuarantee was made to pay. When JN failed to reimburse the latter, respondent PhilGuarantee filed a Complaint for collection of money and damages against herein petitioners.The RTC dismissed PhilGuarantees Complaint as well as the counterclaim of petitioners. It ruled that petitioners are not liable to reimburse PhilGuarantee what it had paid to TRB since the latter was able to foreclose the real estate mortgage executed by JN, thus extinguishing petitioners obligation. According to the RTC, the failure of TRB to sue JN for the recovery of the loan precludes PhilGuarantee from seeking recoupment from what it paid to TRB. Thus, PhilGuarantees payment to TRB amounts to a waiver of its right under Art. 2058 of the Civil Code.ISSUE:WON petitioner is still liable to indemnify the guarantor despite the latter seemingly waiving its right to excussion?HELD:Yes. The Court held that PhilGuarantees waiver of the right of excussion cannot prevent it from demanding reimbursement from petitioners. The law clearly requires the debtor to indemnify the guarantor what the latter has paid.Under a contract of guarantee, the guarantor binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. The guarantor who pays for a debtor, in turn, must be indemnified by the latter.However, the guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor and resorted to all the legal remedies against the debtor. This is what is otherwise known as the benefit of excussion.
