ASG Law

Tag: Dishonor

  • Philippine Guaranty Law: Holding Sureties Liable Even Without Dishonor Protest

    Understanding Surety Obligations: Why Guarantors Can Be Liable Even Without Protest of Dishonored Bills

    n

    TLDR; In Philippine law, sureties or guarantors of a debt can be held liable even if a foreign bill of exchange is dishonored without a formal protest, especially if they have waived the requirement for protest in their agreement. This case clarifies that the obligations of sureties are separate from those of an indorser under the Negotiable Instruments Law and are primarily governed by the terms of their surety agreement and the Civil Code.

    nn

    [ G.R. NO. 125851, July 11, 2006 ] ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.G. SPORTSWEAR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine a business owner, relying on a bank guarantee, confidently extends credit to a new client for a significant export deal. Suddenly, the foreign buyer defaults, and the bank seeks recourse from the guarantors. But what happens if a technicality, like the absence of a formal protest for a dishonored foreign bill, is raised to escape liability? This scenario highlights the crucial importance of understanding the nuances of guaranty and suretyship under Philippine law, especially in international trade and finance. The case of Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals delves into this very issue, clarifying when and how guarantors and sureties can be held accountable for debts, even when procedural requirements related to negotiable instruments are not strictly followed.

    n

    In this case, Allied Bank sought to recover funds it advanced to G.G. Sportswear Manufacturing Corporation based on a discounted export bill. When the foreign bank dishonored the bill due to discrepancies, Allied Bank turned to the guarantors – Nari Gidwani, Alcron International Ltd., and Spouses De Villa – who had signed separate guaranty agreements. The central legal question was whether these guarantors could be held liable despite the bank’s failure to formally protest the dishonor of the foreign bill, as typically required under the Negotiable Instruments Law.

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: GUARANTY VS. SURETYSHIP AND THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW

    n

    Philippine law distinguishes between a contract of guaranty and a contract of suretyship, although the terms are often used interchangeably in common parlance. Article 2047 of the Civil Code defines guaranty as an agreement where a guarantor binds themselves to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor if the debtor fails to do so. If the guarantor binds themselves solidarily with the principal debtor, meaning they are directly and equally liable, the contract is termed a suretyship.

    n

    Crucially, the Supreme Court in this case emphasizes this distinction, noting that in suretyship, the surety’s liability is direct, primary, and absolute. This is in contrast to a guarantor whose liability is secondary and conditional upon the principal debtor’s default. The court highlights that the agreements in question – the Letters of Guaranty and the Continuing Guaranty/Comprehensive Surety – explicitly established a suretyship, with the guarantors binding themselves “jointly and severally” with G.G. Sportswear.

    n

    The respondents, however, invoked Section 152 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, which states: “Where a foreign bill appearing on its face to be such is dishonored by non-acceptance, it must be duly protested for non-acceptance, and where such a bill which has not been previously been dishonored by non-acceptance is dishonored by non-payment, it must be duly protested for non-payment. If it is not so protested, the drawer and indorsers are discharged.” They argued that because Allied Bank did not protest the dishonor of the export bill, they, as effectively indorsers or parties related to the bill, should be discharged from liability.

    n

    The concept of “protest” in negotiable instruments law refers to a formal certification by a notary public that a bill was duly presented and dishonored. This is a requirement primarily designed to protect indorsers of negotiable instruments by ensuring timely notice of dishonor, allowing them to take steps to protect their own interests. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this provision primarily applies to the liability of indorsers, not necessarily to sureties whose obligations arise from a separate contract.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: ALLIED BANK VS. G.G. SPORTSWEAR

    n

    The factual backdrop of the case began on January 6, 1981, when G.G. Sportswear Manufacturing Corporation (GGS) sought to monetize an export bill through Allied Bank. This export bill, amounting to US$20,085, was drawn under a letter of credit issued by Chekiang First Bank Ltd. in Hong Kong, covering a shipment of men’s training suits to West Germany. Allied Bank purchased this bill, effectively “discounting” it for GGS and crediting the peso equivalent to GGS’s account.

    n

    To secure this transaction, Allied Bank required and obtained Letters of Guaranty from Nari Gidwani and Alcron International Ltd. These letters explicitly stated that the guarantors would be liable if the export bill was dishonored for any reason. Subsequently, Spouses De Villa and Nari Gidwani also executed a Continuing Guaranty/Comprehensive Surety, further securing any credit extended by Allied Bank to GGS. This surety agreement even contained a clause explicitly waiving “protest and notice of dishonor.”

    n

    When Allied Bank presented the export bill to Chekiang First Bank in Hong Kong, payment was refused due to “material discrepancies” in the export documents submitted by GGS. Allied Bank then demanded payment from GGS and the guarantors based on their respective agreements. Upon refusal, Allied Bank filed a collection suit.

    n

    The case proceeded through the courts:

    n

      n

    1. Trial Court: Dismissed Allied Bank’s complaint, siding with the respondents.

      2. n

    2. Court of Appeals: Modified the trial court’s decision, ordering GGS to reimburse Allied Bank for the peso equivalent of the export bill. However, the Court of Appeals exonerated the guarantors, reasoning that the “bill had been discharged” and consequently, the guarantors’ accessory obligations were also extinguished.

      3. n

    3. Supreme Court: Reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision concerning the guarantors. The Supreme Court upheld the liability of the guarantors and sureties, emphasizing the following key points:

      4. n

    n

    As the Supreme Court stated:

    n

    “There are well-defined distinctions between the contract of an indorser and that of a guarantor/surety of a commercial paper… The contract of indorsement is primarily that of transfer, while the contract of guaranty is that of personal security. The liability of a guarantor/surety is broader than that of an indorser.”

    n

    Furthermore, the Court underscored the waiver of protest in the surety agreement:

    n

    “Therefore, no protest on the export bill is necessary to charge all the respondents jointly and severally liable with G.G. Sportswear since the respondents held themselves liable upon demand in case the instrument was dishonored and on the surety, they even waived notice of dishonor as stipulated in their Letters of Guarantee.”

    n

    The Supreme Court found that the guarantors’ obligation was not extinguished by the lack of protest because their liability stemmed from the separate contracts of guaranty and suretyship, not solely from their position as parties to the negotiable instrument. The explicit waiver of protest in the surety agreement further reinforced their liability.

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: SECURING LOANS AND GUARANTIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

    n

    This Supreme Court decision provides critical guidance for banks, businesses, and individuals involved in loan agreements and commercial paper transactions in the Philippines. It clarifies the distinct nature of surety agreements and their enforceability, even when certain procedural requirements under the Negotiable Instruments Law are not met.

    n

    For banks and lending institutions, this case reinforces the importance of securing loans with robust surety agreements that clearly define the scope of the surety’s liability and include waivers of procedural requirements like protest. It highlights that relying solely on the procedural aspects of negotiable instruments law might be insufficient when dealing with guarantors or sureties.

    n

    For businesses engaged in international trade, particularly export and import, understanding the implications of discounting export bills and the role of guaranties is vital. When seeking financing through bill discounting, businesses should be aware of the potential liabilities, not just for themselves but also for any guarantors they involve.

    n

    For individuals or entities acting as guarantors or sureties, this case serves as a stark reminder of the significant legal obligations they undertake. Signing a guaranty or surety agreement is not a mere formality. It is a binding contract that can result in direct and solidary liability for the debt, regardless of certain procedural technicalities related to the underlying negotiable instrument, especially if such procedures are explicitly waived.

    nn

    Key Lessons from Allied Banking v. Court of Appeals:

    n

      n

    • Surety Agreements are Independent: A surety’s liability is primarily governed by the surety agreement itself and the Civil Code, not solely by the rules of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

      • n

    • Waiver of Protest is Enforceable: Clauses in surety agreements waiving the requirement of protest for dishonored bills are valid and enforceable under Philippine law.

      • n

    • Solidary Liability: When sureties bind themselves “jointly and severally,” they become directly and primarily liable for the debt, making it easier for creditors to pursue them for recovery.

      • n

    • Understand the Contract: Guarantors and sureties must fully understand the terms and implications of the agreements they sign, as Philippine courts presume individuals understand the documents they execute.

      • n

    nn

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) on Guaranty and Suretyship in the Philippines

    nn

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

    n

    A: A guarantor is secondarily liable, meaning they are only responsible if the principal debtor fails to pay and the creditor has exhausted remedies against the debtor. A surety, on the other hand, is solidarily liable with the principal debtor, meaning the creditor can go directly after the surety for the full amount of the debt without first pursuing the debtor.

    nn

    Q2: What does

  • Credit Card Suspension in the Philippines: Cardholder Responsibilities and Bank Rights

    Understanding Credit Card Suspension: Contractual Obligations Prevail

    In the Philippines, credit card companies have the right to suspend or cancel credit cards if cardholders fail to meet their payment obligations as outlined in their agreements. This case underscores the importance of understanding and adhering to credit card terms and conditions, highlighting that damage suffered due to suspension, when contractually justified, may not always warrant legal compensation. Essentially, ‘damage without legal injury’ (*damnum absque injuria*) applies when a bank acts within its contractual rights, even if it causes inconvenience or embarrassment to the cardholder.

    G.R. No. 120639, September 25, 1998

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine the embarrassment of having your credit card declined at a restaurant, especially when you’re treating guests. This was the predicament faced by Atty. Ricardo Marasigan, leading to a legal battle against BPI Express Card Corporation (BECC). Marasigan sued for damages after his credit card was dishonored at Café Adriatico due to suspension for an overdue account. The central legal question: Was BECC justified in suspending Marasigan’s credit card, and is Marasigan entitled to compensation for the resulting humiliation?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: CONTRACTS, ABUSE OF RIGHTS, AND *DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA*

    Philippine law recognizes the principle of abuse of rights, enshrined in Article 19 of the Civil Code. This article states:

    “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”

    For abuse of rights to exist, three elements must concur: a legal right or duty, exercise of bad faith, and sole intent to prejudice or injure another. However, good faith is presumed, and the burden of proving bad faith lies with the one alleging it.

    Furthermore, the concept of *damnum absque injuria*, meaning “damage without legal injury,” is crucial. It recognizes that damages can occur without a violation of a legal right. In such cases, the law offers no remedy. As jurisprudence explains, injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right, while damage is the resulting loss or harm. Damages are the compensation for that damage. If there’s damage without injury – no breach of legal duty – it’s *damnum absque injuria*.

    Credit card agreements are contracts. The terms and conditions stipulated in these agreements are legally binding. Clauses allowing suspension or cancellation for overdue payments are standard and generally upheld, provided they are not exercised in bad faith or with abuse of right.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: MARASIGAN VS. BPI EXPRESS CARD CORP.

    Ricardo Marasigan, a lawyer, held a BPI Express Credit Card. His card agreement stipulated automatic suspension for accounts with outstanding balances unpaid for 30 days from the billing date. Marasigan consistently exceeded his credit limit and paid his bills by check, which BECC tolerated initially.

    However, Marasigan failed to pay his October 1989 statement on time. BECC contacted him, requesting payment and warning of potential suspension. Marasigan issued a postdated check for P15,000, intending to cover his outstanding balance and future charges. An employee of BECC received the check.

    Subsequently, BECC sent Marasigan a letter via ordinary mail, informing him of the temporary suspension of his card and its inclusion in a caution list due to the overdue account. Critically, this letter was sent on November 28, 1989, prior to the December 8, 1989 incident at Cafe Adriatico.

    On December 8, 1989, Marasigan’s credit card was dishonored at Café Adriatico, causing him embarrassment. He argued that BECC assured him his card would remain active upon issuing the check and that he did not receive prior notice of suspension before the incident.

    The case proceeded through the courts:

    1. **Regional Trial Court (RTC):** Ruled in favor of Marasigan, awarding moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The RTC found BECC had abused its right by suspending the card without proper notice despite assurances to the contrary and the acceptance of the postdated check.
    2. **Court of Appeals (CA):** Affirmed the RTC decision but reduced the damage awards. The CA also believed there was an arrangement to keep the card active upon check issuance but still found BECC liable for damages due to the dishonor.
    3. **Supreme Court (SC):** Reversed the CA and RTC decisions, ruling in favor of BPI Express Card Corporation. The SC held that BECC was justified in suspending the card based on the contract terms and that Marasigan was not entitled to damages.

    The Supreme Court emphasized several key points:

    • **Contractual Right to Suspend:** The credit card agreement clearly stated that cards with balances unpaid for 30 days would be automatically suspended. Marasigan admitted to non-payment beyond this period. The Court quoted the agreement: “Any CARD with outstanding balances unpaid after thirty (30) days from original billing/statement date shall automatically be suspended…”
    • **No Binding Agreement to Keep Card Active:** While there were communications and a postdated check was issued, the SC found no binding agreement that BECC assured Marasigan his card would remain active. The postdated check was not considered immediate payment.
    • **No Abuse of Right by BECC:** The SC found no bad faith on BECC’s part. BECC had grounds to suspend the card as per the contract. They even allowed Marasigan to use the card beyond the 30-day grace period and sent a suspension notice.
    • ***Damnum Absque Injuria* Applied:** Marasigan suffered damage (embarrassment), but BECC did not commit a legal injury by suspending the card according to their contractual right. Thus, it was a case of *damnum absque injuria*. The Court stated, “Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone, the law affords no remedy…”
    • **Notice of Suspension:** Although the contract didn’t mandate prior notice beyond the terms, BECC sent a suspension letter via ordinary mail on November 28. The Court invoked the presumption that mail duly sent is received, and Marasigan failed to rebut this presumption.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: RESPONSIBILITIES AND RIGHTS

    This case provides critical lessons for both credit card holders and issuers in the Philippines:

    **For Credit Card Holders:**

    • **Understand Your Agreement:** Carefully read and understand the terms and conditions of your credit card agreement, especially clauses regarding payment deadlines, interest, fees, and suspension/cancellation policies.
    • **Pay on Time:** Ensure timely payments to avoid suspension, penalties, and negative credit history.
    • **Checks are Not Immediate Payment:** Recognize that checks, especially postdated ones, are not considered immediate cash payments. Payment is typically considered complete upon check clearing.
    • **Presumption of Notice:** Be aware that notices sent via ordinary mail are presumed to be received. Keep your address updated with the credit card company.

    **For Credit Card Issuers:**

    • **Clear Terms and Conditions:** Ensure credit card agreements are clear, easily understandable, and explicitly state suspension/cancellation policies.
    • **Follow Contractual Procedures:** Adhere to the procedures outlined in the agreement when suspending or cancelling cards.
    • **Document Communications:** Maintain records of communications with cardholders, including notices of suspension or overdue accounts.

    Key Lessons

    • Credit card companies have a contractual right to suspend or cancel cards for non-payment as per the agreed terms.
    • Cardholders are responsible for understanding and complying with their payment obligations.
    • Damage suffered due to justified contractual actions may not be legally compensable under the principle of *damnum absque injuria*.
    • Notice sent via ordinary mail is presumed to be received unless proven otherwise.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: Can my credit card be suspended without prior notice?

    A: It depends on your credit card agreement. If the agreement states automatic suspension after a certain period of non-payment, no separate prior notice might be strictly required beyond the terms themselves. However, many companies send courtesy notifications.

    Q: What if I sent a postdated check as payment? Is my account considered paid?

    A: No, a postdated check is not considered immediate payment. Payment is usually credited when the check clears, which is after the date on the check. Until then, the account may still be considered overdue.

    Q: What are moral damages, and when can I claim them?

    A: Moral damages are compensation for mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock, etc. They are awarded for wrongful acts or omissions that cause such suffering. In this case, moral damages were denied because the court found no wrongful act by BECC.

    Q: What does “abuse of rights” mean in the context of credit card suspension?

    A: Abuse of rights means exercising a legal right in bad faith, with the sole intent to harm another. In this case, the court found no bad faith from BECC; they were acting within their contractual rights to manage overdue accounts.

    Q: What is *damnum absque injuria*, and how does it apply here?

    A: *Damnum absque injuria* means damage without legal injury. It applies when someone suffers a loss or harm, but not due to a violation of their legal rights by another party. In this case, Marasigan suffered embarrassment (damage), but BECC did not violate his legal rights by suspending the card according to the contract (no legal injury).

    Q: What should I do if I believe my credit card was wrongly dishonored?

    A: First, contact your credit card company immediately to understand why it was dishonored. Review your account statements and credit card agreement. If you believe there was an error or breach of contract, formally dispute the dishonor in writing and seek legal advice.

    Q: Is notice of suspension sent by ordinary mail considered valid?

    A: Yes, under Philippine Rules of Evidence, there is a presumption that letters duly directed and mailed are received in the ordinary course of mail. It’s up to the recipient to prove non-receipt.

    Q: As a business, what should I do if a customer presents a suspended credit card?

    A: Follow your established procedures for credit card transactions. If the terminal or system declines the card, inform the customer discreetly and request an alternative payment method. Avoid making judgmental statements.

    ASG Law specializes in contract law and commercial litigation in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.