ASG Law

Category: Credit and Collection

  • Surety’s Continuing Liability: Upholding Obligations Despite Credit Card Upgrades

    In Jeanette D. Molino v. Security Diners International Corporation, the Supreme Court affirmed that a surety remains liable for a cardholder’s debts even after the credit card is upgraded, provided the surety agreement contains a clause waiving discharge due to changes or novations in the original agreement. This ruling underscores the importance of carefully reviewing surety agreements, as they may impose continuing obligations despite modifications to the underlying credit card terms. For individuals acting as sureties, this decision highlights the potential for extensive liability beyond the initial credit limits or terms.

    Bound by Signature: When a Surety’s Word Extends Beyond the Original Credit Agreement

    This case originates from a credit card agreement where Danilo Alto applied for a Regular Diners Club Card, with his sister-in-law, Jeanette Molino, acting as his surety. The surety undertaking signed by Jeanette stated that she would be jointly and severally liable for all obligations and charges incurred by Danilo. This included a clause specifying that any change or novation in the agreement would not release her from her surety obligations. Subsequently, Danilo requested an upgrade to a Diamond Edition card, which Jeanette approved. When Danilo defaulted on his payments, Security Diners International Corporation (SDIC) sought to recover the debt from Jeanette as the surety.

    The central legal question revolves around whether the upgrade of the credit card from a regular to a diamond edition constituted a novation that extinguished Jeanette’s obligations as a surety. Novation, as a legal concept, refers to the extinguishment of an old obligation by the creation of a new one. The Supreme Court has consistently held that novation can occur either by express declaration or by material incompatibility between the old and new obligations. In Fortune Motors vs. Court of Appeals, the Court elucidated the test for incompatibility, stating:

    xxx The test of incompatibility is whether the two obligations can stand together, each one having its independent existence. If they cannot, they are incompatible and the latter obligation novates the first. Novation must be established either by the express terms of the new agreement or by the acts of the parties clearly demonstrating the intent to dissolve the old obligation as a consideration for the emergence of the new one. The will to novate, whether totally or partially, must appear by express agreement of the parties, or by their acts which are too clear or unequivocal to be mistaken.

    In this case, the upgrading of the credit card was deemed a novation, effectively replacing the original agreement. However, the crucial aspect of this case is the presence of a clause in the surety agreement explicitly stating that any changes or novations in the agreement would not release Jeanette from her obligations. This clause is pivotal because it demonstrates her clear and unequivocal consent to remain bound as a surety, even if the terms of the credit card agreement were altered. The Supreme Court emphasized that the extent of a surety’s liability is determined by the language of the suretyship contract itself.

    Article 1370 of the Civil Code reinforces this principle, stating: “If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.” This provision underscores the importance of adhering to the plain language of contracts, especially when the intent of the parties is evident. The court found that Jeanette’s surety undertaking clearly and unambiguously bound her to remain liable for Danilo’s debts, irrespective of any modifications to the original credit card agreement. The Supreme Court drew a parallel to Pacific Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, where a guarantor was held liable for the full extent of the debtor’s indebtedness due to a similar waiver of discharge in the guaranty agreement. This consistent application of legal principles reinforces the binding nature of contractual obligations, particularly in cases involving suretyship agreements.

    Jeanette argued that since the principal debtor, Danilo Alto, was dropped as a defendant in the complaint, she could not be held liable as a surety. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the surety undertaking expressly provided for solidary liability. A surety is considered by law as being the same party as the debtor in relation to whatever is adjudged touching the obligation of the latter, and their liabilities are interwoven as to be inseparable. This means that SDIC was within its rights to proceed directly against Jeanette, as a surety and solidary debtor, without first exhausting all remedies against Danilo. Article 1216 of the Civil Code supports this position, stating:

    The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may be subsequently directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected.

    The Supreme Court also considered Jeanette’s background and experience, noting that she was a business administration graduate with extensive work experience in several banks. This background suggested that she was fully aware of the implications of the surety undertaking she executed. She had the opportunity to withdraw her suretyship when Danilo upgraded his card, but instead, she approved the upgrade, further reinforcing her consent to remain bound by the agreement. While acknowledging the financial difficulties Jeanette faced, the Court emphasized that her liability was a direct consequence of an undertaking she freely and intelligently entered into. The Supreme Court, however, also noted that courts may equitably reduce the award for penalty as provided under such suretyship agreements if the same is iniquitous or unconscionable.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Jeanette Molino, as a surety, was liable for the credit card debts of Danilo Alto after his credit card was upgraded, given that the surety agreement contained a clause waiving discharge due to changes in the agreement.
    What is a surety undertaking? A surety undertaking is an agreement where a person (the surety) binds themselves jointly and severally with the principal debtor to pay the creditor if the debtor defaults on their obligations. The surety is directly and primarily liable to the creditor.
    What is novation and how does it relate to surety agreements? Novation is the extinguishment of an existing obligation by the substitution of a new one. In the context of surety agreements, novation can release the surety from their obligations unless the surety agreement contains a clause waiving discharge due to changes or novations.
    What does solidary liability mean? Solidary liability means that each debtor is liable for the entire obligation. The creditor can proceed against any one of the solidary debtors, or all of them simultaneously, to recover the full amount of the debt.
    Can a creditor proceed against a surety without first pursuing the principal debtor? Yes, if the surety agreement provides for solidary liability, the creditor can proceed directly against the surety without first exhausting remedies against the principal debtor. This is because the surety is directly and primarily liable.
    What was the court’s ruling regarding Jeanette’s liability? The court ruled that Jeanette was liable as a surety for Danilo’s debts, even after the credit card upgrade, because the surety agreement contained a clause stating that any changes or novations would not release her from her obligations.
    Why was the clause in the surety agreement so important in this case? The clause in the surety agreement waived Jeanette’s right to be discharged from her obligations due to any changes or novations in the credit card agreement, making her liable even after the upgrade. It demonstrated her clear and unequivocal consent to remain bound.
    What should individuals consider before signing a surety agreement? Individuals should carefully review the terms of the surety agreement, understand the extent of their liability, and be aware of any clauses that waive their right to be discharged due to changes in the underlying agreement. Seeking legal advice is advisable.

    This case serves as a crucial reminder of the binding nature of surety agreements and the importance of understanding their terms before signing. It underscores that waivers of discharge due to changes or novations can significantly extend a surety’s liability beyond the initial terms of the agreement. Prudent individuals should always seek legal counsel to fully comprehend the implications of surety undertakings before committing themselves to such obligations.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Jeanette D. Molino, vs. Security Diners International Corporation, G.R. No. 136780, August 16, 2001

  • Protecting Creditor Rights: Understanding Rescission of Sale in the Philippines

    Rescinding a Sale: When Can Creditors Challenge Property Transfers in the Philippines?

    n

    TLDR: Philippine law provides remedies for creditors when debtors fraudulently transfer property to avoid paying debts. However, creditors must first exhaust all other legal means to recover their dues before they can seek to rescind a sale between their debtor and a third party. This case clarifies that a creditor’s right to rescind a sale (accion pauliana) is a subsidiary remedy, not a primary course of action.

    n

    [ G.R. No. 119466, November 25, 1999 ] SALVADOR ADORABLE AND LIGAYA ADORABLE, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JOSE O. RAMOS, FRANCISCO BARENG AND SATURNINO BARENG, RESPONDENTS.

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine lending money to someone, only to watch them sell off their assets to avoid repayment. This scenario, unfortunately, is not uncommon, and the law provides mechanisms to protect creditors from such fraudulent conveyances. The case of Adorable v. Court of Appeals delves into the specifics of when and how a creditor can legally challenge a sale made by their debtor to a third person. In this case, the Adorable spouses, as creditors, attempted to rescind a sale made by their debtor, Francisco Bareng, to Jose Ramos, arguing it was done to defraud them. The Supreme Court ultimately clarified the steps creditors must take before they can pursue such a legal challenge, emphasizing the subsidiary nature of the remedy of rescission.

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: Accion Pauliana and Creditor’s Rights

    n

    The heart of this case lies in understanding the legal concept of accion pauliana, or the action to rescind contracts undertaken in fraud of creditors. This remedy is enshrined in Article 1177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states:

    n

    “The creditors, after having pursued the property in possession of the debtor to satisfy their claims, may exercise all the rights and bring all the actions of the latter for the same purpose, save those which are inherent in his person; they may also impugn the actions which the debtor may have done to defraud them.”

    n

    This provision doesn’t immediately grant creditors the right to simply annul any sale made by a debtor. Instead, it outlines a specific sequence of actions. Before a creditor can invoke accion pauliana, they must have already

  • Philippine Law on Guarantors: Protecting Yourself from Subsidiary Liability

    Understanding Guarantor Liability in the Philippines: Exhaustion of Remedies

    n

    TLDR: Before a guarantor in the Philippines can be compelled to pay a debt, the creditor must first exhaust all legal remedies to collect from the principal debtor. This case clarifies the guarantor’s right to ‘excussion’ and highlights the importance of pursuing the principal debtor first.

    nn

    [G.R. No. 109941, August 17, 1999] PACIONARIA C. BAYLON, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER NINTH DIVISION) AND LEONILA TOMACRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine co-signing a loan for a friend, believing your role is merely secondary. Suddenly, you’re facing demands for full repayment, even before the original borrower has been pursued. This scenario, unfortunately, is a common source of legal disputes, highlighting the crucial yet often misunderstood concept of a guarantor in Philippine law. The Supreme Court case of Baylon v. Court of Appeals provides essential clarification on the rights and obligations of guarantors, emphasizing the principle of ‘excussion’ – the creditor’s duty to exhaust all remedies against the principal debtor first. This case serves as a critical guide for anyone acting as a guarantor or extending credit with a guarantee involved.

    nn

    In this case, Pacionaria Baylon was asked to act as a guarantor for a loan obtained by Rosita Luanzon from Leonila Tomacruz. When Luanzon defaulted, Tomacruz immediately went after Baylon. The central legal question became: can a guarantor be held liable before the creditor exhausts all legal avenues to recover from the primary debtor?

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: THE GUARANTOR’S RIGHT TO EXCUSSION

    n

    Philippine law, specifically the Civil Code, meticulously defines the concept of guaranty. A guaranty, as outlined in Article 2047, is an undertaking to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another in case of their default. This creates a subsidiary liability, meaning the guarantor’s obligation arises only after the principal debtor fails to fulfill their commitment.

    nn

    The cornerstone of guarantor protection is the “benefit of excussion,” enshrined in Article 2058 of the Civil Code. This article explicitly states: “The guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor, and has resorted to all the legal remedies against the debtor.”

    nn

    This right is not merely a procedural formality; it is a substantive protection for the guarantor. It ensures fairness by requiring creditors to first pursue all available means to recover from the one who directly benefited from the loan or obligation. Article 2062 further reinforces this by stating: “In every action by the creditor, which must be against the principal debtor alone, except in the cases mentioned in article 2059, the former shall ask the court to notify the guarantor of the action.” This emphasizes that the primary action should be against the principal debtor, with the guarantor’s involvement being secondary and protective.

    nn

    Prior Supreme Court decisions have consistently upheld the benefit of excussion. Cases like World Wide Ins. and Surety Corp vs. Jose and Visayan Surety and Ins. Corp. vs. De Laperal have established the subsidiary nature of a guarantor’s liability. The landmark case of Vda. de Syquia vs. Jacinto further cemented this principle, stating that the exhaustion of the principal’s property must precede any action against the guarantor, and this exhaustion cannot even begin until a judgment is obtained against the principal debtor.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: BAYLON VS. COURT OF APPEALS

    n

    The narrative of Baylon v. Court of Appeals unfolds with Pacionaria Baylon introducing Leonila Tomacruz to Rosita Luanzon, portraying Luanzon as a reliable businesswoman seeking a loan. Baylon assured Tomacruz of Luanzon’s business stability and the high 5% monthly interest, persuading Tomacruz to lend P150,000. A promissory note was drafted, signed by Luanzon as the debtor and Baylon under the designation of “guarantor.”

    nn

    When Luanzon defaulted on the loan, Tomacruz immediately demanded payment from Baylon. Despite Baylon’s denial of guarantee liability and invocation of the benefit of excussion, Tomacruz filed a collection suit against both Luanzon and Baylon. Crucially, while Luanzon was named in the suit, she was never served summons, meaning the court never gained jurisdiction over her.

    nn

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Tomacruz, ordering Baylon (and her husband, though his role is less central to this legal point) to pay. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting Baylon to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    nn

    The Supreme Court, in reversing the lower courts, focused on the premature nature of holding Baylon liable. Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, writing for the Third Division, emphasized a critical procedural gap:

    nn

    “Under the circumstances availing in the present case, we hold that it is premature for this Court to even determine whether or not petitioner is liable as a guarantor and whether she is entitled to the concomitant rights as such, like the benefit of excussion, since the most basic prerequisite is wanting – that is, no judgment was first obtained against the principal debtor Rosita B. Luanzon.”

    nn

    The Court highlighted that obtaining a judgment against the principal debtor is a prerequisite to even discussing guarantor liability. Since Luanzon was never properly brought before the court, there was no judgment against her, making the claim against Baylon premature.

    nn

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court reiterated the essence of the benefit of excussion:

    nn>

    “It is useless to speak of a guarantor when no debtor has been held liable for the obligation which is allegedly secured by such guarantee. Although the principal debtor Luanzon was impleaded as defendant, there is nothing in the records to show that summons was served upon her. Thus, the trial court never even acquired jurisdiction over the principal debtor. We hold that private respondent must first obtain a judgment against the principal debtor before assuming to run after the alleged guarantor.”

    nn

    In essence, the Supreme Court corrected a fundamental error: pursuing the guarantor before establishing the principal debtor’s liability. The procedural misstep of not serving summons on Luanzon proved fatal to Tomacruz’s claim against Baylon at this stage.

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING GUARANTORS AND CREDITORS

    n

    Baylon v. Court of Appeals serves as a powerful reminder of the legal protections afforded to guarantors in the Philippines. It underscores that a guarantee is not a primary obligation but a subsidiary one. Creditors cannot simply bypass the principal debtor and immediately demand payment from the guarantor.

    nn

    For individuals considering acting as a guarantor, this case provides crucial reassurance. It clarifies that you are not the first line of recourse for creditors. Before your assets can be touched, the creditor must diligently pursue the principal debtor through legal means and demonstrate that those efforts have been exhausted.

    nn

    Conversely, for creditors, this case is a stern warning. It emphasizes the importance of proper legal procedure. Filing a case against both debtor and guarantor is insufficient. Jurisdiction must be properly acquired over the principal debtor, and a judgment against them must be secured before pursuing the guarantor’s assets.

    nn

    Key Lessons:

    n

      n

    • Benefit of Excussion is Real: Guarantors have a legal right to demand that creditors exhaust all remedies against the principal debtor first.

      • n

    • Judgment Against Principal Debtor is Prerequisite: A creditor must obtain a court judgment against the principal debtor before they can legally compel the guarantor to pay.

      • n

    • Procedural Diligence for Creditors: Creditors must ensure proper legal procedures are followed, including serving summons to the principal debtor, to establish a valid claim against a guarantor.

      • n

    • Understand Your Role as Guarantor: Before signing as a guarantor, fully understand the subsidiary nature of your liability and the protections afforded by Philippine law.

      • n

    nn

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    nn

    Q: What exactly does ‘exhaustion of remedies’ mean?

    n

    A: ‘Exhaustion of remedies’ means the creditor must take all legal steps to collect from the principal debtor. This typically includes obtaining a judgment, attempting to seize and sell the debtor’s assets, and demonstrating that these efforts have been unsuccessful in fully satisfying the debt.

    nn

    Q: Can a creditor sue the guarantor and principal debtor in the same lawsuit?

    n

    A: Yes, a creditor can include both in the lawsuit, but the action is primarily against the principal debtor. As Article 2062 states, the action is

  • Surety vs. Guarantor: Understanding Co-Maker Liability in Philippine Loans

    Co-Maker as Surety: Why You’re Equally Liable for a Loan

    Signing as a co-maker on a loan in the Philippines means you’re taking on significant financial responsibility. This Supreme Court case clarifies that a co-maker is typically considered a surety, making you solidarily liable with the principal debtor. Don’t assume co-signing is a mere formality; understand your obligations to avoid unexpected financial burdens.

    G.R. No. 126490, March 31, 1998

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine helping a friend secure a loan by signing as a co-maker, believing your responsibility kicks in only if they absolutely cannot pay. However, you suddenly find yourself facing a lawsuit to recover the entire debt, even before the lender goes after your friend. This scenario isn’t just hypothetical; it reflects the harsh reality many Filipinos face when they misunderstand the legal implications of being a co-maker, particularly in loan agreements. The case of Estrella Palmares v. Court of Appeals and M.B. Lending Corporation delves into this very issue, dissecting the crucial difference between a surety and a guarantor in the context of a promissory note. At its heart, the case questions whether a co-maker who agrees to be ‘jointly and severally’ liable is merely a guarantor of the debtor’s solvency or a surety who directly insures the debt itself.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: SURETYSHIP VS. GUARANTY IN THE PHILIPPINES

    Philippine law, specifically Article 2047 of the Civil Code, clearly distinguishes between guaranty and suretyship. A guaranty is defined as an agreement where the guarantor binds themselves to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor only if the debtor fails to do so. Essentially, a guarantor is a secondary obligor, liable only after the creditor has exhausted remedies against the principal debtor.

    On the other hand, suretyship arises when a person binds themselves solidarily with the principal debtor. Crucially, Article 2047 states: “If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such case the contract is called a suretyship.” This solidary liability is the key differentiator. Solidary obligation, as per Article 1216 of the Civil Code, means that “the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.” This means a surety can be held liable for the entire debt immediately upon default of the principal debtor, without the creditor needing to first go after the principal debtor’s assets.

    The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized this distinction, highlighting that a surety is essentially an insurer of the debt, while a guarantor is an insurer of the debtor’s solvency. This case further examines how these concepts are applied when someone signs a promissory note as a “co-maker,” and whether the specific wording of the agreement leans towards suretyship or mere guaranty. Furthermore, the concept of a “contract of adhesion,” where one party drafts the contract and the other merely signs it, is relevant, especially when considering if ambiguities should be construed against the drafting party.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: PALMARES VS. M.B. LENDING CORP.

    In this case, Estrella Palmares signed a promissory note as a “co-maker” alongside spouses Osmeña and Merlyn Azarraga, who were the principal borrowers from M.B. Lending Corporation for P30,000. The loan was payable by May 12, 1990, with a hefty compounded interest of 6% per month. The promissory note contained a crucial “Attention to Co-Makers” section, explicitly stating that the co-maker (Palmares) understood she would be “jointly and severally or solidarily liable” and that M.B. Lending could demand payment from her if the Azarragas defaulted.

    Despite making partial payments totaling P16,300, the borrowers defaulted on the remaining balance. M.B. Lending then sued Palmares alone, citing her solidary liability as a co-maker, and claiming the Azarraga spouses were insolvent. Palmares, in her defense, argued she should only be considered a guarantor, liable only if the principal debtors couldn’t pay, and that the interest rates were usurious and unconscionable. The trial court initially sided with Palmares, dismissing the case against her and suggesting M.B. Lending should first sue the Azarragas. The trial court reasoned that Palmares was only secondarily liable and the promissory note was a contract of adhesion to be construed against the lender.

    However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring Palmares liable as a surety. The appellate court emphasized the explicit wording of the promissory note where Palmares agreed to be solidarily liable. This led Palmares to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court meticulously examined the promissory note and the arguments presented by Palmares, which centered on the supposed conflict between clauses defining her liability. Palmares argued that while one clause mentioned solidary liability (surety), another clause stating M.B. Lending could demand payment from her “in case the principal maker… defaults” suggested a guarantor’s liability. She also contended that as a layperson, she didn’t fully grasp the legal jargon and that the contract, being one of adhesion, should be interpreted against M.B. Lending.

    The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with Palmares. Justice Regalado, writing for the Court, stated:

    “It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control. In the case at bar, petitioner expressly bound herself to be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the principal maker of the note. The terms of the contract are clear, explicit and unequivocal that petitioner’s liability is that of a surety.”

    The Court emphasized that Palmares explicitly acknowledged in the contract that she “fully understood the contents” and was “fully aware” of her solidary liability. The Court further clarified the distinction between surety and guaranty:

    “A surety is an insurer of the debt, whereas a guarantor is an insurer of the solvency of the debtor. A suretyship is an undertaking that the debt shall be paid; a guaranty, an undertaking that the debtor shall pay.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Palmares to be a surety and solidarily liable. However, recognizing the hefty 6% monthly interest and 3% penalty charges, the Court, exercising its power to equitably reduce penalties, eliminated the 3% monthly penalty and reduced the attorney’s fees from 25% to a fixed P10,000.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR CO-MAKERS AND LENDERS

    This case serves as a stark warning to individuals considering acting as co-makers for loans. It underscores that Philippine courts generally interpret co-maker agreements as suretyship, especially when the language explicitly states “solidary liability.” This means you are not just a backup; you are equally responsible for the debt from the outset.

    For lenders, the case reinforces the importance of clear and unambiguous contract language, particularly in “contracts of adhesion.” While such contracts are generally valid, ambiguities can be construed against them. Clearly stating the co-maker’s solidary liability and ensuring the co-maker acknowledges understanding this obligation is crucial.

    Key Lessons:

    • Understand Your Role: Before signing as a co-maker, recognize that you are likely becoming a surety, not just a guarantor. This entails direct and immediate liability for the entire debt.
    • Read the Fine Print: Don’t gloss over clauses like “jointly and severally liable” or “solidary liability.” These words carry significant legal weight. Seek legal advice if you’re unsure.
    • Assess the Risk: Evaluate the borrower’s financial capacity realistically. If they default, you will be held accountable.
    • Negotiate Terms (If Possible): While co-maker agreements are often contracts of adhesion, attempt to negotiate fairer interest rates and penalty clauses, as courts may intervene only in cases of truly unconscionable terms.
    • Lenders Be Clear: Use clear, plain language in loan agreements, especially regarding co-maker liabilities. Explicitly state the solidary nature of the obligation to avoid disputes.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is the main difference between a surety and a guarantor?

    A: A surety is primarily liable for the debt and directly insures the debt’s payment. A guarantor is secondarily liable and insures the debtor’s solvency, meaning the creditor must first exhaust all remedies against the principal debtor before going after the guarantor.

    Q2: If I sign as a co-maker, am I automatically a surety?

    A: Philippine courts generally interpret “co-maker” in loan agreements as a surety, especially if the contract includes language indicating solidary liability. However, the specific wording of the agreement is crucial.

    Q3: What does “solidary liability” mean?

    A: Solidary liability means each debtor is liable for the entire obligation. The creditor can demand full payment from any one, or any combination, of the solidary debtors.

    Q4: Is a “contract of adhesion” always invalid?

    A: No, contracts of adhesion are not inherently invalid in the Philippines. They are valid and binding, but courts will strictly scrutinize them, especially for ambiguities, which are construed against the drafting party (usually the lender).

    Q5: Can interest rates and penalties in loan agreements be challenged?

    A: Yes, while the Usury Law is no longer in effect, courts can still reduce or invalidate interest rates and penalties if they are deemed “unconscionable” or “iniquitous,” as demonstrated in the Palmares case.

    Q6: What should I do if I’m being asked to be a co-maker for a loan?

    A: Thoroughly understand the loan agreement, especially the co-maker clause. Assess the borrower’s financial capacity and your own risk tolerance. If unsure, seek legal advice before signing anything.

    Q7: Can a creditor sue the surety without suing the principal debtor first?

    A: Yes, because of solidary liability, a creditor can choose to sue the surety directly and immediately upon the principal debtor’s default, without needing to sue the principal debtor first.

    ASG Law specializes in Credit and Collection and Contract Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.