When is a Corporate Debt Not a Corporate Debt? Piercing the Corporate Veil in Philippine Law

G.R. No. 74336, April 07, 1997

Imagine a scenario: a company president signs a surety agreement to secure a credit line for their business. Later, a loan is taken out by other officers, and the bank seeks to hold the president liable under that initial surety agreement. This case explores the complexities of corporate liability, personal guarantees, and the extent to which a surety agreement can be enforced.

Introduction

In the Philippines, businesses often require loans or credit lines to fuel their operations. To secure these financial arrangements, banks frequently require personal guarantees or surety agreements from the company’s officers or major stockholders. However, what happens when a loan is obtained by some officers of the corporation, seemingly for the corporation’s benefit, but without proper authorization? Can the bank automatically hold the president, who signed a prior surety agreement for a different credit line, personally liable? This case, J. Antonio Aguenza v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., sheds light on this crucial distinction between corporate and personal liabilities, emphasizing the importance of proper corporate authorization and the strict interpretation of surety agreements.

Legal Context: Understanding Corporate Authority and Surety Agreements

Philippine corporate law recognizes the separate legal personality of a corporation from its stockholders and officers. This means that a corporation can enter into contracts, own property, and be sued in its own name. However, corporations can only act through their authorized officers and agents. The power to borrow money, especially for significant amounts, typically requires a specific grant of authority from the Board of Directors. This authority is usually documented in a Board Resolution.

A surety agreement, on the other hand, is a contract where one party (the surety) guarantees the debt or obligation of another party (the principal debtor) to a third party (the creditor). Article 2047 of the Civil Code defines suretyship:

“By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the contract is called a suretyship.”

Surety agreements are strictly construed against the surety. This means that the surety’s liability cannot be extended beyond the clear terms of the agreement. Any ambiguity in the agreement is interpreted in favor of the surety. Consider this example: Mr. Santos signs a surety agreement guaranteeing a P1,000,000 loan for his company. Later, without Mr. Santos’s knowledge, the company takes out an additional P500,000 loan. The bank cannot hold Mr. Santos liable for the additional P500,000 loan unless the surety agreement explicitly covers future obligations.

Case Breakdown: Aguenza vs. Metrobank

Here’s how the case unfolded:

• In 1977, Intertrade authorized Aguenza and Arrieta to jointly open credit lines with Metrobank.
• Aguenza and Arrieta signed a Continuing Suretyship Agreement, guaranteeing Intertrade’s obligations up to P750,000.
• Later, Arrieta and Perez (a bookkeeper) obtained a P500,000 loan from Metrobank, signing a promissory note in their names.
• Arrieta and Perez defaulted, and Metrobank sued Intertrade, Arrieta, Perez, and eventually, Aguenza, claiming he was liable under the Continuing Suretyship Agreement.

The trial court ruled in favor of Aguenza, stating that the loan was the personal responsibility of Arrieta and Perez, not Intertrade’s. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding Intertrade liable based on admissions in its answer and letters from Arrieta. The appellate court also concluded that the Continuing Suretyship Agreement covered the loan.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing several key points:

• Lack of Corporate Authorization: There was no evidence that Intertrade’s Board of Directors authorized Arrieta and Perez to obtain the loan.
• Strict Interpretation of Surety Agreements: The Continuing Suretyship Agreement was specifically tied to Intertrade’s credit lines, not any loan taken out by individual officers.

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of corporate authorization and the limited scope of surety agreements. The Court quoted Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules of Evidence: “An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.”

The Court further stated, “The present obligation incurred in subject contract of loan, as secured by the Arrieta and Perez promissory note, is not the obligation of the corporation and petitioner Aguenza, but the individual and personal obligation of private respondents Arrieta and Lilia Perez.”

Practical Implications: Protecting Yourself and Your Business

This case provides valuable lessons for businesses and individuals involved in corporate finance and suretyship agreements.

• For Business Owners: Ensure that all corporate actions, especially borrowing money, are properly authorized by the Board of Directors and documented in Board Resolutions.
• For Corporate Officers: Understand the scope and limitations of any surety agreements you sign. Do not assume that a general surety agreement covers all corporate obligations.
• For Banks: Verify that corporate officers have the proper authority to enter into loan agreements on behalf of the corporation.

Key Lessons:

• Corporate acts require proper authorization.
• Surety agreements are strictly construed.
• Personal guarantees should be carefully reviewed and understood.

Imagine another situation: Ms. Reyes is the CFO of a startup. She is asked to sign a surety agreement guaranteeing a loan for the company. Before signing, she should carefully review the agreement and ensure that it clearly defines the scope of her liability. She should also confirm that the company has properly authorized the loan and that she is comfortable with the terms of the agreement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a surety agreement?

A: A surety agreement is a contract where one party (the surety) guarantees the debt or obligation of another party (the principal debtor) to a third party (the creditor).

Q: How is a surety agreement different from a guarantee?

A: In a surety agreement, the surety is primarily liable for the debt, meaning the creditor can go directly after the surety without first pursuing the principal debtor. In a guarantee, the guarantor is only secondarily liable.

Q: Can a surety agreement cover future debts?

A: Yes, a surety agreement can cover future debts if it is explicitly stated in the agreement. However, such agreements are strictly construed.

Q: What happens if the principal debtor defaults on the loan?

A: The creditor can demand payment from the surety. The surety is then obligated to pay the debt according to the terms of the surety agreement.

Q: How can I protect myself when signing a surety agreement?

A: Carefully review the agreement, understand the scope of your liability, and seek legal advice if necessary. Ensure that you are comfortable with the terms of the agreement and that the principal debtor is creditworthy.

Q: What is the importance of a Board Resolution in corporate loans?

A: A Board Resolution is crucial as it documents the corporation’s authorization for specific actions, such as obtaining loans. It proves that the corporate officers acting on behalf of the company have the necessary authority.

ASG Law specializes in corporate law and contract review. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.