This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The aforequoted provision clearly speaks of an extension for the payment of a debt granted by the creditor to a debtor without the consent of the surety. The theory behind Article 2079 was further explained by the Court in Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines (Formerly Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation) v. Asia Paces Corporation,[35] thus:Comparing a surety's obligations with that of a guarantor, the Court, in the case of Palmares v. CA, illumined that a surety is responsible for the debt's payment at once if the principal debtor makes default, whereas a guarantor pays only if the principal debtor is unable to pay, viz.: | |||||