Surety Agreement Philippines

Premiums are evaluated as far as possible: a) the requirements of the contract, service contract, order, communication for prosecution, etc.b) The financial health of the client (solvency must be checked) c) The history of losses / receivables of the client. (d) The total amount for which the guarantor could be held liable in the event of delay in the main obligation, namarco, responded by rejecting the dismissal of the appeal and by displaying as an affirmative defence the absence of a remedy and the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. On 16 December 1966, the Tribunal delivered a judgment supporting NAMARCO`s assertion that the insolvency of the debtor and principal had not fulfilled the guarantor`s liability resulting from the loan. Thus, the complaint was dismissed and the plaintiff guarantee company was ordered to pay the defendant spouses` debt to NAMARCO to the extent of its (guarantee) plus attorneys` fees and expenses. Following that decision, the Applicant filed this appeal. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles Virtual Legal Library The first instance found that Noemi Almeda, married to Generoso Esquillo, who was doing business under the name and style of Almeda Trading, had entered into a contract with the National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) on 4 December 1961 for the purchase of goods on credit, which were payable within thirty days of the date of their delivery. As requested by NAMARCO, a loan of P5,000.00 was issued by Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. (Appendix “A”) to ensure faithful compliance with the contractual terms. The agreement was then completed on October 17, 1962 and a new loan of P5,000.00 of P5,000, also purchased by Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. (Appendix “C”), 1 for NAMARCO The obligations contained uniformly the following provisions: In the event of a dispute, it is true that NAMARCO`s secured claim was registered or declared in the insolvency proceedings. However, the claimant cannot use this fact to support his request for exemption from the accepted undertaking. On the one hand, it is almost certain that the creditor NAMARCO will not be able to ensure the full satisfaction of its credit from the debtor`s assets introduced into the insolvency proceedings. Whereas under the guarantee contract, which is valid and maintained, the entire obligation may even be required directly from the guarantor himself, the creditor`s action to first use the assets of the insolvent debtor is to the benefit of the guarantor At least the latter would be liable only for the amount which cannot be covered or left dissatisfied by the Ordinance on the Assets of the Insolvent, 1 0 with the right to go against the debtor-capital after making the necessary payment to the creditor.

. . .