Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Nego - Inciong Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    KT
    Inciong co-signed a promissory note with Naybe and Pantanosas for a P50k loan from the Philippine Bank of Communications. When the note went unpaid, PBC sued the three co-makers but later released Pantanosas and dropped the case against Naybe who left for Saudi Arabia. Inciong argued he should be released too but the court ruled against him, finding that as a solidary co-maker rather than guarantor, he remained fully liable despite the other two no longer being parties to the case. The express terms of the promissory note made all three signatories jointly and severally liable for the full amount, giving PBC discretion to pursue any

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nego - Inciong Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    KT
    20 views1 page
    Inciong co-signed a promissory note with Naybe and Pantanosas for a P50k loan from the Philippine Bank of Communications. When the note went unpaid, PBC sued the three co-makers but later released Pantanosas and dropped the case against Naybe who left for Saudi Arabia. Inciong argued he should be released too but the court ruled against him, finding that as a solidary co-maker rather than guarantor, he remained fully liable despite the other two no longer being parties to the case. The express terms of the promissory note made all three signatories jointly and severally liable for the full amount, giving PBC discretion to pursue any

    Original Description:

    NEGO

    Original Title

    Nego- Inciong vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Inciong co-signed a promissory note with Naybe and Pantanosas for a P50k loan from the Philippine Bank of Communications. When the note went unpaid, PBC sued the three co-makers but later released Pantanosas and dropped the case against Naybe who left for Saudi Arabia. Inciong argued he should be released too but the court ruled against him, finding that as a solidary co-maker rather than guarantor, he remained fully liable despite the other two no longer being parties to the case. The express terms of the promissory note made all three signatories jointly and severally liable for the full amount, giving PBC discretion to pursue any

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    20 views1 page

    Nego - Inciong Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    KT
    Inciong co-signed a promissory note with Naybe and Pantanosas for a P50k loan from the Philippine Bank of Communications. When the note went unpaid, PBC sued the three co-makers but later released Pantanosas and dropped the case against Naybe who left for Saudi Arabia. Inciong argued he should be released too but the court ruled against him, finding that as a solidary co-maker rather than guarantor, he remained fully liable despite the other two no longer being parties to the case. The express terms of the promissory note made all three signatories jointly and severally liable for the full amount, giving PBC discretion to pursue any

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Baldomero Inciong, Jr.

    vs Court of Appeals
    In February 1983, Rene Naybe took out a loan from Philippine Bank of
    Communications (PBC) in the amount of P50k. For that he executed a promissory
    note in the same amount. Naybe was able to convince Baldomero Inciong, Jr. and
    Gregorio Pantanosas to co-sign with him as co-makers. The promissory note went
    due and it was left unpaid. PBC demanded payment from the three but still no
    payment was made. PBC then sue the three but PBC later released Pantanosas
    from its obligations. Naybe left for Saudi Arabia hence cant be issued summons
    and the complaint against him was subsequently dropped. Inciong was left to face
    the suit. He argued that that since the complaint against Naybe was dropped, and
    that Pantanosas was released from his obligations, he too should have been
    released.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Inciong should be held liable.
    HELD: Yes. Inciong is considering himself as a guarantor in the promissory note.
    And he was basing his argument based on Article 2080 of the Civil Code which
    provides that guarantors are released from their obligations if the creditors shall
    release their debtors. It is to be noted however that Inciong did not sign the
    promissory note as a guarantor. He signed it as a solidary co-maker.
    A guarantor who binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor does not
    become a solidary co-debtor to all intents and purposes. There is a difference
    between a solidary co-debtor and a fiador in solidum (surety). The latter, outside of
    the liability he assumes to pay the debt before the property of the principal debtor
    has been exhausted, retains all the other rights, actions and benefits which pertain
    to him by reason of the fiansa; while a solidary co-debtor has no other rights than
    those bestowed upon him.
    Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three
    signatories therein are jointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may
    be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary
    creditor (PBC) to determine against whom he will enforce
    collection. Consequently, the dismissal of the case against Pontanosas may not be
    deemed as having discharged Inciong from liability as well. As regards Naybe,
    suffice it to say that the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. Inciong,
    therefore, may only have recourse against his co-makers, as provided by law.

    You might also like