7/25/2019 Baldomero Inciong, Jr vs. CA and Pbc

1/2

BALDOMERO INCIONG, JR VS. CA and PBC

G.R. No. 96405. June 26, 1996

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In February 1983, Rene Naybe took out a loan from Philippine Bank ofCommunications (PBC) in the amount of P50k. For that he executed a

promissory notein the same amount. Naybe was able to convince Baldomero

Inciong 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 thecomplaint against Naybe was dropped, and that Pantanosas was released from

his obligations, he too should have been released.

STAMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUE:

Whether or not Inciong should be held liable.

SUPREME COURTS HOLDING:

Yes. Inciong is considering himself as a guarantor in the promissorynote. 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 asolidary 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 liabilityhe 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.

7/25/2019 Baldomero Inciong, Jr vs. CA and Pbc

2/2

Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that

the three signatories therein arejointly 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 haverecourse against his co-makers, as

provided by law.