G.R. No. 26671 , September 17, 1927
Municipality of Orion, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. F. B. Concha, Dominga San Jose, and Antero Pereyra, Defendants; Antero Pereyra, Appellant.

FACTS

The Municipality of Orion contracted with F.B. Concha to build a schoolhouse. Concha, with sureties Dominga San Jose and Antero Pereyra, posted a performance bond. Concha failed to complete the project, prompting the Municipality to sue all three for damages. The trial court rendered a joint and several judgment against Concha for P9,245.71 and against the sureties for P6,000 on the bond. Only surety Dominga San Jose appealed. The Supreme Court, in her appeal, absolved her from liability because the Municipality had granted Concha an extension of time without her knowledge or consent, thereby discharging her from the surety bond. After the case was remanded, the Municipality moved for execution of the judgment against the remaining defendants, Concha and Pereyra. Pereyra opposed, arguing that the appeal and subsequent reversal in favor of his co-surety San Jose also relieved him from liability. The trial court denied his opposition, leading to this appeal by Pereyra.

ISSUE

Does the appeal and subsequent absolution from liability of one surety (Dominga San Jose) in a joint and several judgment also discharge a co-surety (Antero Pereyra) who did not appeal?

RULING

No. The appeal and reversal of judgment in favor of one surety does not automatically inure to the benefit of a co-surety who did not appeal, especially when their liabilities are several and based on distinct grounds.

The Supreme Court clarified that the effect of one party’s appeal on co-judgment debtors depends on the nature of their liability and the grounds for reversal. The Court distinguished between a purely “joint” judgment and a “joint and several” judgment. In this case, the liability of the sureties was joint and several, meaning each was independently liable for the whole obligation.

The reversal in favor of San Jose was based on a defense personal to herthe extension of time granted to the principal debtor without her consent. This defense was not available to Pereyra, as there was no showing that he, too, was unaware of or did not consent to the extension. His liability remained separate and unaffected by the grounds that absolved San Jose.

The Court further explained that an appeal by one debtor benefits all only when their rights and liabilities are so interwoven as to be inseparable (e.g., a reversal based on the principal debtor’s lack of liability would necessarily discharge the sureties). Here, the reversal was based on a personal discharge of one surety, not on the extinguishment of the principal obligation. Since the judgment against the principal debtor (Concha) remained final and unappealed, and Pereyra’s several liability was not predicated on San Jose’s, the reversal did not relieve him.

Therefore, the trial court’s order for execution against Antero Pereyra was AFFIRMED.