Willex Plastics Vs CA
Willex Plastics Vs CA
1/15
8/12/2015
valid
_______________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
479
479
2/15
8/12/2015
480
3/15
8/12/2015
specified.
On January 7, 1981, following demand upon it, IUCP
paid to Manilabank the sum of P4,334,280.61 representing
InterResin Industrials outstanding obligation. (Exh. M1)
On February 23 and 24, 1981, Atrium Capital Corp., which
in the meantime had succeeded IUCP, demanded from
InterResin Industrial and Willex Plastic the payment of
what it (IUCP) had paid to Manilabank. As neither one of
the sureties paid, Atrium filed this case in the court below
against InterResin Industrial and Willex Plastic.
On August 11, 1982, InterResin Industrial paid
Interbank, which had in turn succeeded Atrium, the sum of
P687,500.00
481
481
4/15
8/12/2015
482
5/15
8/12/2015
483
6/15
8/12/2015
484
7/15
8/12/2015
485
Corporation.
Similarly, the Court of Appeals found it to be an
undisputed fact that to secure the guarantee undertaken
by
plaintiffappellee
[Interbank]
of
the
credit
accommodation granted to InterResin Industrial by
Manilabank,
plaintiffappellee
required
defendant
appellants to sign a Continuing Guaranty. These factual
findings of the trial court and of the Court of Appeals are
binding on us not only because of the rule that on appeal to
the Supreme Court such findings are entitled to great
weight and respect but also because our own examination
of the record
of the trial court confirms these findings of the
7
two courts.
Nor does the record show any other transaction under
which InterResin Industrial may have obtained sums of
money from Interbank. It can reasonably be assumed that
InterResin Industrial and Willex Plastic intended to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f2141a5f58aadf020000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT362/?username=Guest
8/15
8/12/2015
RTC Decision, p. 8.
486
486
9/15
8/12/2015
(1982).
487
487
10/15
8/12/2015
12
13
14
488
488
11/15
8/12/2015
and does not interfere with the use of the ordinary tests and
canons of interpretation which apply in regard to other contracts.
In the present case the circumstances so clearly indicate that
the bond given by Echevarria was intended to cover all of the
indebtedness of the Arrocera upon its current account with the
plaintiff Bank that we cannot possibly adopt the view of the court
below in regard to the effect of the bond.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f2141a5f58aadf020000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT362/?username=Guest
12/15
8/12/2015
489
13/15
8/12/2015
The hearing
490
490
14/15
8/12/2015
not the premium has been paid by the obligor to the surety.
491
491
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f2141a5f58aadf020000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT362/?username=Guest
15/15