G.R. No. L-45253; April 14, 1939
FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISABELO G. SANCHEZ, CATALINO MIRANDA, and BONIFACIO TIMBOL, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Defendant Isabelo G. Sanchez became a traveling sales agent for Radio Corporation of the Philippines under a contract (Exhibit A). To guarantee his obligations, Sanchez, together with plaintiff Fidelity and Surety Company, executed a bond (Exhibit B) in favor of Radio Corporation. To secure his reimbursement obligation to the surety company, Sanchez, jointly with defendants Catalino Miranda and Bonifacio Timbol, executed another bond (Exhibit C) in favor of the surety company. Sanchez failed to pay for merchandise received, amounting to P784.17. Upon demand, the surety company paid this amount to Radio Corporation under its bond (Exhibit B). The surety company then demanded reimbursement from Sanchez and his co-defendants under their bond (Exhibit C). Upon their refusal, the surety company filed this suit. The trial court ruled in favor of the surety company. Defendants appealed, raising several errors, including the non-joinder of Radio Corporation as a party, the effect of Radio Corporation’s failure to file a counterclaim in a separate suit by Sanchez, and the propriety of the surety’s payment.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Radio Corporation of the Philippines was an indispensable party to the suit.
2. Whether Radio Corporation’s failure to file a counterclaim in a prior suit by Sanchez constituted a waiver of its claim, estopping the surety’s recovery.
3. Whether the surety’s payment to Radio Corporation was proper, making the defendants liable for reimbursement.

RULING

1. No, Radio Corporation was not an indispensable party. The law requires joinder only of parties with an interest in the result of the action. After the surety paid Radio Corporation, the latter no longer had any claim against Sanchez or interest in the dispute between the surety and the defendants. The suit was properly between the surety (as creditor under the reimbursement bond) and the defendants (as debtors under that bond).
2. No, there was no waiver or estoppel. Radio Corporation’s failure to file a counterclaim in the prior suit filed by Sanchez (for his commissions) did not bar the surety’s claim. The payment by the surety to Radio Corporation was made before Radio Corporation filed its answer in Sanchez’s suit. At that point, Radio Corporation no longer had a claim to counterclaim, as it had already been paid. Furthermore, the surety was not a party to that prior suit and cannot be bound by the actions or omissions of the parties therein.
3. Yes, the surety’s payment was proper and the defendants are liable for reimbursement. Sanchez admitted his indebtedness to Radio Corporation in the Stipulation of Facts. The surety paid a matured obligation, as required under Article 1841 of the Civil Code. Having paid, the surety is entitled to reimbursement from the principal debtor and his co-guarantors under Article 1838 of the Civil Code and the terms of the reimbursement bond (Exhibit C). The defendants’ liability is solidary.
The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED.

AI Generated by Armztrong.