G.R. No. 18520 ; September 23, 1922
THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE ALDANESE and UNION GUARANTEE CO., LTD., defendants. UNION GUARANTEE CO., LTD., appellant.

FACTS

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation sued Vicente Aldanese, in his capacity as Collector of Customs, for the sum of $9,340.80. The Collector of Customs, in turn, sought reimbursement from Vamenta & Co., Isidro Vamenta, and their alleged surety, Union Guarantee Co., Ltd. The trial court rendered a judgment holding all parties liable in a chain: Aldanese to pay the Bank; Vamenta & Co. and Isidro Vamenta to pay Aldanese; and Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., as surety, to pay Aldanese in case of Vamenta & Co.’s insolvency, with a right of reimbursement from Vamenta & Co. The Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., appealed. The trial court’s finding that the surety company had issued a bond for P9,450 in favor of the government was based on statements and inferences from the proceedings, but the bond document itself was not presented as evidence, nor was there clear proof of its existence, terms, conditions, or amount.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding the Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., liable as a surety without sufficient evidence as to the existence, terms, conditions, and amount of the alleged bond.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The liability of the surety company cannot be fixed without competent evidence establishing the scope and conditions of the bond. The statements during trial were insufficient and ambiguous, and the record lacked even a scintilla of evidence regarding the bond’s specifics. The case was remanded to the court of origin to allow the proper party to introduce competent evidence on the existence, conditions, and amount of the alleged bond.