G.R. No. L-15868. October 31, 1961. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTO GONZALES, ET AL., defendants. SERVANDO DE LOS ANGELES, defendant-appellant.
FACTS

Fausto Gonzales, as principal debtor, and the Philippine International Surety Co., Inc., as surety, executed a promissory note in favor of Equitable Banking Corporation. To indemnify the surety company for this undertaking, Gonzales, Servando de los Angeles (the appellant), and two others (Pablo Galang and Leon Macose) executed an indemnity agreement in favor of the surety company, which included a real estate mortgage. Upon Gonzales’s default, the bank debited the surety company, which then demanded reimbursement from the indemnitors. After the demand was unheeded, the surety company filed an action in the Municipal Court of Manila against all four indemnitors.
The Municipal Court rendered a decision against Gonzales and De los Angeles but dismissed the case against Galang and Macose on plaintiff’s motion, as they could not be located for summons. De los Angeles appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), which affirmed the municipal court’s decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, De los Angeles argued he was denied due process in the municipal court, claiming he and his counsel left after moving for dismissal when plaintiff did not initially appear, and that evidence was later taken in their absence.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the appellant was denied due process in the municipal court proceedings, and (2) whether the plaintiff could validly proceed against the appellant alone, excluding his co-indemnitors.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s decision, ruling against the appellant on both issues. On the due process claim, the Court found the appellant’s allegation unsupported by the record. Critically, after the municipal court’s decision, the appellant filed a motion for new trial based solely on other grounds (lack of jurisdiction over the absent co-defendants and alleged fraudulent combination), with no mention of being denied his day in court. This omission negated his present claim. The Court further held that by filing a motion for new trial on other grounds, he impliedly waived any right to object on due process grounds. Substantively, the appellant admitted the execution of the indemnity agreement and the non-payment, and he presented no evidence to disprove the plaintiff’s claim.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the plaintiff could legally sue the appellant alone. The obligation under the indemnity agreement was joint and several (solidary). As such, each solidary debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and the creditor has the discretion to demand payment from any one of them. The plaintiff’s inability to summon the other indemnitors after efforts did not preclude action against the appellant. The appellant’s proper remedy was not to challenge the suit but to seek contribution from his co-debtors by filing a cross-claim or a third-party complaint, which he failed to do. The alleged fraudulent combination was deemed conjectural and not a valid defense against the surety company’s enforceable claim.