Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A.M. No. 21901
A.M. No. 21901
Custom Search
SECOND DIVISION
Appeal of the defendant Universal Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation, defendant and third-party plaintiff Manila Surety
and Fidelity Co., Inc., and third-party defendant Pablo Sarmiento from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
1. The defendant Universal Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation is hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiff the
sum of P100,242.04 in the first cause of action, P141,343.45 in the second cause of action and
P54,500.00 in the third cause of action, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from August 10,
1962, the date of the filing of the complaint, until fully paid;
2. Defendant Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., is hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiff, jointly and
severally with defendant Universal Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation, the sum of P53,643.00 in the first
cause of action, P68,777.77 in the second cause of action and P54,508.00 in the third cause of action;
3. Defendant Universal Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation and Pablo Sarmiento are hereby sentenced to
pay, jointly and severally, the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., the sum of P53,643.00 and P68,777.77
with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from August 10, 1962 until fully paid plus P2,000.00
as attorney's fees;
4. Defendant Universal Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation is hereby sentenced to pay the Manila Surety &
Fidelity Co., Inc., the sum of P54,508.00 with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from
August 10, 1962, until fully paid;
It is not disputed that the Universal Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation, hereinafter referred to as UNIVERSAL for short.
was awarded six (6) trawl boats by the. Reparations Commission as end-user of reparations goods. These fishing
boats, christened the M/S UNIFISH 1, M/S UNIFISH 2. M/S UNIFISH 3. M/S UNIFISH 4, M/S UNIFISH 5, and M/S
UNIFISH 6. were delivered to UNIVERSAL two at a time, f.o.b. Japanese port.
To guarantee the faithful compliance with the obligations under said contract, a performance bond in the amount of
P53,643.00, with UNIVERSAL as principal and the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., as surety, was executed in
favor of the Reparations Commission. 3 A Corresponding indemnity agreement was executed to indemnify the
surety company for any damage, loss charges, etc., which it may sustain or incur as a consequence of having
become a surety upon the performance bond. 4
The M/S UNIFISH 3 and M/S UNIFISH 4, with a total purchase price of P687,777.76 were delivered to UNIVERSAL
on April 20, 1959 and the Contract of Conditional Purchase and Sale Reparations Goods, dated November 25,
1959, 5 provided that "the first installment representing 10% of the amount or SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN PESOS AND SEVENTY-SEVEN CENTAVOS shall be paid within 24 months from
the date of complete delivery thereof, the balance shall be paid in the manner herein stated as shown in the
A performance bond in the amount of P68,777.77, issued by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., was also
submitted to guarantee the faithful compliance with the obligations set forth in the contract, 6 and indemnity
agreement was executed in favor of the surety company in consideration of the said bond. 7
The delivery of the M/S UNIFISH 5 and M/S UNIFISH 6 is covered by a contract for the Utilization of Reparations
Goods (M/S "UNIFISH 5" and M/S "UNIFISH 6") executed by the parties on February 12, 1960, 8 and the Schedule
of Payments attached thereto, provided, as follows:
A performance bond in judgment, amount of P54,500.00 issued by judgment, Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., 10
was submitted, and an indemnity agreement was executed by UNIVERSAL in favor of judgment, surety company. 11
On August 10, 1962, judgment, Reparations Commission instituted judgment, present action against UNIVERSAL
and judgment, surety company to recover various amounts of money due under these contracts. In answer,
UNIVERSAL claimed that judgment, amounts of money sought to be collected are not yet due and demandable.
The surety company also contended that judgment, action is premature, but set up a cross-claim against
UNIVERSAL for reimbursement of whatever amount of money it may have to pay judgment, plaintiff by reason of
judgment, complaint, including interest, and for judgment, collection of accumulated and unpaid premiums on
judgment, bonds with interest thereon. With leave of courts first obtained, judgment, surety company filed a third-
party complaint against Pablo S. Sarmiento, one of the indemnitors in judgment, indemnity agreements. The third-
party defendant Pablo S. Sarmiento denied personal liability claiming that he signed judgment, indemnity
agreements in question in his capacity as acting general manager of UNIVERSAL. After appropriate proceedings
and upon judgment, preceding facts, judgment, trial court rendered judgment, judgment hereinbefore stated. hence,
this appeal.
(1) The principal issue for resolution is whether or not judgment, first installments under judgment, three (3)
contracts of conditional purchase and sale of reparations goods were already due and demandable when judgment,
complaint was filed. UNIVERSAL contends that there is an obscurity in judgment, terms of judgment, contracts in
question which were caused by the plaintiff as to judgment, amounts and due dates of judgment, first installments
which should have been first fixed before a creditor can demand its payment from judgment, debtor. To be explicit.
counsel points to judgment, Schedule of Payment attached to, and forming a part of, the contract for judgment,
purchase and sale of judgment, M/S UNIFISH 1 and M/S UNIFISH 2 which states that judgment, amount of first
installment is P53,642.84 and judgment, due date of its payment is May 8, 1961. However, judgment, amount of the
first of succeeding itemized installments is P56,597.20 and judgment, due date is May 8, 1962. In the case of the
M/S UNIFISH 3 and M/S UNIFISH 4, the first installments are P68,777.77 and due in July, 1961 and P72,565.68
and due in July 1962, respectively. In the contract for the purchase and sale of the M/S UNIFISH 5 and M/S
UNIFISH 6, the amounts indicated as first installments are P54,500.00 and P57,501.57, and the due dates of
payment are October 17, 1961 and October 17, 1962, respectively.
(a) The major premise in appellants' process of reasoning is that the first installments due on April 25,
1963, and May 26, 1963, are 'first installments. although they are not so designated in judgment,
schedule appended to each of judgment, contracts between judgment, parties. Appellant's, moreover,
assume that judgment, 'first' installment is included in judgment, ten (10) equal yearly installments'
mentioned subsequently to said 'first' installment. In feet, however, only one installment is labeled as
'first' in each one of said schedules, and that is judgment, installment due on 'April 25, 1962' - as
regards M/S Don Salvador or Magsaysay - and that due on 'May 26, 1962'- as regards M/S Don
Amando or Estancia. The schedules do not describe judgment, 'ten (10) equal yearly installments' —
following the one characterized therein as 'first' — meaning 'number,' not order or sequence, of
installments — and the numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 written before each of said 'ten (10) equal
yearly installments following the 'first' to accrue after the due date of said 'first' installment. Just the
same, the parties have not so described (as 'first') — in the schedules forming part of their contracts —
the installments numbered '1' in the list contained in each. Moreover, considering that the words
'TERMS: Ten (10) EQUAL YEARLY INSTALLMENTS,' appear after the lines reading: 'AMOUNT OF 1st
INSTALLMENT (10% OF F.O.B. COSTS) P174,761.42' and DUE DATE OF 1st INSTALLMENT April
25, 1962 (or May 26, 1962) and that, subsequently to said 'TERM: Ten (10) EQUAL YEARLY
INSTALLMENTS,' there is a list of ten (10) equal yearly installments, it is clear that the latter do not
include the one designated as 'first' installment.
(b) The pertinent part of Section 12 of Rep. Act No. 1789, pursuant to which the vessels in question
were sold to the Buyer reads:
. . . Capital goods . . . disposed of to private parties as provided for in subsection (a) of Section two
hereof shall be sold on a cash or credit basis, under rules and regulations as may be determined by the
Commission. Sales on a credit basis shall be payable in installments: Provided, That judgment, first
installment shall be paid within twenty-four months after complete delivery of judgment, capital goods
and judgment, balance within a period not exceeding ten years, . . . plus judgment, service provided for
in section ten thereof; Provided further, That judgment, unpaid balance of judgment, price thereof shall
bear interest at judgment, rate of not more than three percent per annum. . . . .
It should be noted that, pursuant to judgment, schedules attached to judgment, contracts with
judgment, Buyer, judgment, 'complete delivery' of judgment, vessels took place on April 25, and May
26, 1960, respectively, so that judgment, the 24 months taxed by law for judgment, payment of
judgment, 'First installment expired on April 25, 1962 and May 26,1962, which are judgment, very dates
stated in judgment, aforementioned schedules for judgment, payment of judgment, respective '1st'
installments. What is more, in view of said legal provision, judgment, Commission had no authority to
agree that the 1st installment shall be paid on any later date, and judgment, Buyer must have been
aware of this fact. Hence, judgment, parties could not have intended judgment, first installments to
become due on April 25, and May 26, 1963 It is, likewise, obvious - particularly when considered in
relation to judgment, provision above quoted - that judgment, 'ten (10) equal yearly installments.'
mentioned in the schedules, refer to the 'balance' of the price to be paid by the buyer, after deducting
judgment, 'first' installment, so hat, altogether, there would be 'eleven' installments, namely, the first ,
which would be the 10% of the F.O.B. cost of the vessel — as agreed upon between 'The Governments
of the Philippines and Japan — and 'ten (10) yearly installments,' representing the balance of "he
amount due to he Commission from judgment, Buyer, including tile interest thereon.
(2) The claim of judgment, surety company to the effect that the trial court erred in not awarding it the amount of
P7,251.42, as premium is the performance bonds, is well taken. The payment of premiums on the bonds to the
surety company had been expressly undertaken by UNIVERSAL in the indemnity agreements executed by it in favor
of judgment, surety company. The premium is judgment, consideration for furnishing judgment, bonds and
judgment, obligation to pay judgment, same subsists for as long as judgment, liability of judgment, surety shall exist.
13
Hence, UNIVERSAL should pay judgment, amount of P7,251.42 to judgment, surety company.
(3) The surety company also claims that judgment, trial court erred in not applying judgment, amount of P10,000.00,
paid as down payment by UNIVERSAL to judgment, Reparations Commission, to judgment, guaranteed
indebtedness. According to judgment, surety company, under Article 1254 of judgment, Civil rode, where there is no
imputation of payment made by either judgment, debtor or creditor, The debt which is the most onerous to the
debtor shall be deemed to have been satisfied, so that the amount of P10,000.00 paid by UNIVERSAL as down
payment on the purchase of the, M/S UNIFISH 1 and M/S UNIFISH 2 should be applied to the guaranteed portion of
the debt, this releasing part of the liability hence the obligation of 'The surety company shall be only P43,643.00,
instead of P53,643.00.
The rules contained in Articles 1252 to 1254 of judgment, Civil Code apply to a person owing several debts of
judgment, same kind to a single creditor. They cannot be made applicable to a person whose obligation as a mere
surety is both contingent and singular, 14 which in this case is the full and faithful compliance with the terms of the
contract of conditional purchase and sale of reparations goods, The obligation included the payment, not only of the
first installment in the amount of P53,643.00, but also of the ten (10) equal yearly installments of P56,597.20 per
annum. The amount of P10,000.00 was, indeed, deducted from judgment, amount of P53,643.00, but then
judgment, first of judgment, ten (10) equal yearly installments had also accrued, hence, no error was committed in
holding judgment, surety company to judgment, full extent of its undertaking.
(4) Finally, We find no merit in judgment, claim of judgment, third-party defendant Pablo S. Sarmiento that he is not
personally liable having merely executed judgment, indemnity agreements 15 in his capacity as acting general
manager of UNIVERSAL. Pablo S. Sarmiento appears to have signed the indemnity agreement twice — the first, in
this capacity as acting general manager of UNIVERSAL, and the second, in his individual capacity. The indemnity
agreements in question state the following. among others:
Besides, the "acknowledgment" stated that "Pablo S. Sarmiento for himself and on behalf of Universal Deep-Sea
WHEREFORE, judgment, judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with judgment, modification that judgment,
UNIVERSAL Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation is further ordered to pay judgment, Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc.,
judgment, amount of P7,251.42 for judgment, premiums and documentary stamps on judgment, performance
bonds. Appellants shall pay proportionate costs.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
2 Exhibit "A".
3 Exhibit "B"
4 Exhibit "16-B-Surety"
5 Exhibit "C".
6 Exhibit "D"
7 Exhibit 14-Surety.
8 Exhibit "E".
10 Exhibit "F"
11 Exhibit 15-Surety.
13 Arranz vs. Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., 101 Phil. 272.
Constitution
Statutes
Executive
Issuances
Judicial