This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Clearly, Asianbank's right to collect payment for the full amount from Geronimo, as surety, exists independently of its right against Gateway as principal debtor;[13] it could thus proceed against one of them or file separate actions against them to recover the principal debt covered by the deed on suretyship, subject to the rule prohibiting double recovery from the same cause.[14] This legal postulate becomes all the more cogent in case of an insolvency situation where, as here, the insolvency court is bereft of jurisdiction over the sureties of the principal debtor. As Asianbank aptly points out, a suit against the surety, insofar as the surety's solidary liability is concerned, is not affected by an insolvency proceeding instituted by or against the principal debtor. The same principle holds true with respect to the surety of a corporation in distress which is subject of a rehabilitation proceeding before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As we held in Commercial Banking Corporation v. CA, a surety of the distressed corporation can be sued separately to enforce his liability as such, notwithstanding an SEC order declaring the former under a state of suspension of payment.[15] | |||||