GR L 3242; (October, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3242
DANIEL TANCHOCO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMPLICIO SUAREZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
October 17, 1906 | Johnson, J.
—
FACTS:
1. Plaintiff Daniel Tanchoco filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover 420 pesos from defendants Simplicio Suarez and Mariano Eraña based on a promissory note executed on December 5, 1904.
2. Defendant Eraña did not appear in court, while Suarez filed a general and special denial, admitting the execution of the note but denying individual liability for the full amount.
3. The lower court ruled in favor of Tanchoco, holding Suarez liable for the entire debt under the note’s terms (“de mancomun e insolidum“). Suarez appealed.
4. The promissory note was not included in the bill of exceptions, and no motion for a new trial was filed, limiting the Supreme Court’s review to the pleadings and lower court’s findings.
—
ISSUE:
Whether the facts admitted in the pleadings and the lower court’s findings (that the defendants were liable de mancomun e insolidum) suffice to hold Suarez individually liable for the full amount of the promissory note.
—
RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding:
1. The admitted execution of the note by Suarez and Eraña, coupled with the lower court’s finding of solidary liability (de mancomun e insolidum), justified holding Suarez liable for the full amount.
2. Absent the promissory note or a motion for new trial, the Supreme Court could not review the evidence (per precedents like Ismael v. Ganzon, 1 Phil. Rep. 454).
3. Suarez was ordered to pay 420 pesos with 6% interest from the lower court’s judgment date, plus costs.
Disposition: Judgment affirmed. Case remanded to the lower court for execution.
Concurring Justices: Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey.
—
Key Doctrine: When a promissory note imposes solidary liability (de mancomun e insolidum), a co-debtor may be held liable for the entire obligation unless the terms expressly state otherwise. The absence of the note in the record precludes appellate review of its terms.