RCBC v Arro • Residoro Chua and Enrique Go, Sr. executed a comprehensive surety agreements to guaranty among others, any existing indebtedness indebtedness o !avao Agricu"tura" Agricu"tura" #ndustries Corporation $the "atter is reerred to as !aicor%. • A promissory promissory note in the the amount o &'((,((( &'((,((( )as issued in avor o petitioner RCBC payab"e on *une '+, '--. • he note note )as signed by Enrique Go, Sr. in his persona" capacity and in beha" o !aicor. • he promissory note )as not u""y paid despite repeated demands/ hence, petitioner i"ed a comp"aint or a sum o money against !aicor, Enrique Go, Sr. and Residoro Chua. • Respondent Residoro Residoro Chua on the t he ground that the comp"aint states no cause o action as against him. • 0e a""eged that can not be he"d "iab"e under the promissory note because it )as on"y Enrique Go, Sr. )ho signed the same in beha" o !aicor and in his o)n persona" capacity. • &etitioner a""eged that by virtue o the execution o the comprehensive surety agreement, respondent is "iab"e because said agreement is continuing/ and it encompasses every other indebtedness the !aicor may, rom time to time incur )ith petitioner ban1. 234 Respondent Chua is "iab"e. • 5ES. • he comprehensive surety agreement )as 6oint"y executed by respondent Residoro Chua and Enrique Go, Sr., &resident and Genera" 7anager respective"y, o !aicor, to cover existing as )e"" as uture ob"igations )hich !aicor may incur )ith t he petitioner ban1, sub6ect on"y to the proviso that their "iabi"ity sha"" not exceed &'((,(((.((. &'((,(((.((. • he guaranty is a continuing one )hich sha"" remain in u"" orce and eect unti" the ban1 is notiied o its termination. • At the time the "oan o o &'((,(((.(( )as )as obtained rom petitioner petitioner by !aicor, !aicor, or the purpose o having an additiona" capita" or buying and se""ing coco8she"" charcoa" and importation o activated carbon, the comprehensive surety agreement )as admitted"y in u"" orce and eect. • he "oan )as, thereore, covered by the said agreement, and private respondent, even i he did not sign the promis sory note, is "iab"e by virtue o the surety agreement. • he on"y condition that )ou"d ma1e him "iab"e thereunder thereunder is that the !aicor 9is or may become "iab"e as ma1er, endorser, acceptor or other)ise9. here is no doubt that !aicor is "iab"e on the promissory note evidencing the indebtedness. • he surety agreement )hich )as ear"ier signed by Enrique Go, Sr. and private respondent, respondent, is an accessory ob"igation, ob"igation, it being dependent dependent upon a principa" one )hich, in this case is the "oan obtained by !aicor as evidenced by a promissory note. • 2hat obvious"y induced petitioner ban1 to grant the "oan )as the surety agreement )hereby Go and Chua bound themse"ves so"idari"y to guaranty the punctua" payment o the "oan at maturity. • #t can be c"ear"y seen that the surety agreement )as executed to guarantee uture debts )hich !aicor may incur )ith petitioner, as is "ega""y a""o)ab"e under the Civi" Code. • hus — Artic"e :(;+. — A guaranty guaranty may a"so a"so be given as security security or uture debts, debts, the amount o )hich is not yet 1no)n/ there can be no c"aim against the guarantor unti" the debt is "iquidated. A conditiona" ob"igation may a"so be secured.
