This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-01-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A contract of suretyship is defined as "an agreement whereby a party, called the surety, guarantees the performance by another party, called the principal or obligor, of an obligation or undertaking in favor of a third party, called the obligee. It includes official recognizances, stipulations, bonds or undertakings issued by any company by virtue of and under the provisions of Act No. 536, as amended by Act No. 2206."[50] We have consistently held that a surety's liability is joint and several, limited to the amount of the bond, and determined strictly by the terms of contract of suretyship in relation to the principal contract between the obligor and the obligee.[51] It bears stressing, however, that although the contract of suretyship is secondary to the principal contract, the surety's liability to the obligee is nevertheless direct, primary, and absolute.[52] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Thus, suretyship arises upon the solidary binding of a person deemed the surety with the principal debtor for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation.[43] A surety is considered in law as being the same party as the debtor in relation to whatever is adjudged touching the obligation of the latter, and their liabilities are interwoven as to be inseparable.[44] Therefore, as surety, PCIC becomes liable for the debt or duty of FCC although it possesses no direct or personal interest over the obligations of the latter, nor does it receive any benefit therefrom.[45] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, E.O. 1008 expressly vests in the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts entered into by parties that have agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration.[27] | |||||