G.R. No. L-8785; March 30, 1914
UY ALOC, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. CHO JAN LING, ET AL., defendants; SIMEON BLAS, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Plaintiffs instituted an action for recovery of property and rents. On November 30, 1908, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decree ordering defendant Cho Jan Ling to: (1) transfer the real property to the rightful owners; (2) render an account of his administration of the property from May 1905 until the appointment of a receiver; and (3) pay over the sum of P24,155.95 in his possession as rents prior to May 1905. The decree concluded by stating that after the final account was rendered, the court would issue the necessary orders.

Defendants appealed this decree to the Supreme Court. For the appeal, Cho Jan Ling, as principal, with sureties including Simeon Blas, executed an appeal bond on January 18, 1909, in the amount of P60,000. The bond guaranteed that the defendants would comply with the judgment if affirmed wholly or in part.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. Subsequently, in the Court of First Instance, Cho Jan Ling rendered the required accounts. After these proceedings, the court found Cho Jan Ling indebted to the plaintiffs in the additional amount of P18,313.34.

Plaintiffs then sued out execution against surety Simeon Blas, seeking to collect not only the P24,155.95, interest, and costs covered by the bond, but also the subsequent P18,313.34 judgment. Blas moved to quash the execution as to the excess over his contractual obligation. The trial court granted the motion, and plaintiffs appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the surety, Simeon Blas, under the terms of the appeal bond, is liable for the subsequent judgment of P18,313.34 arising from the accounting ordered in the original decree.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order quashing the execution against the surety for the amount of the subsequent judgment.

The liability of a surety is stricti juris and is governed by Article 1827 of the Civil Code, which provides that “Security is not presumed; it must be express and cannot be extended further than that specified therein.” The appeal bond in question expressly guaranteed that the defendants would comply with the judgment of November 30, 1908, if affirmed. That judgment ordered Cho Jan Ling to (a) pay P24,155.95, (b) transfer property, and (c) render an account of his administration. It did not order him to pay whatever balance might be found due after the accounting; a further decree was necessary for that.

The surety’s obligation was limited to securing compliance with the specific terms of that affirmed judgment. The bond did not expressly or by necessary implication guarantee the payment of any sum that might later be adjudged due upon the accounting. The subsequent liability of Cho Jan Ling for P18,313.34 arose from a new judicial order following the accounting, a liability independent of the bond. The surety’s contract had been complied with upon the rendering of the accounts, and his liability did not extend to the monetary consequence of that act.