Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 262 views

    53 Quiamco Vs Capital Insurance and Surety Co Inc

    Uploaded by

    Jiana SinoCruz De Guzman
    The spouses Noe and Clarita Quiamco applied for a supersedeas bond from Capital Insurance to appeal a labor case decision. The bond was issued and delivered to the spouses, but they failed to file it within the required 10 day period, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal. Capital Insurance paid the bond amount when a writ of execution was served. It then sued the spouses to recover the amount. The court ruled that the surety agreement between the parties was perfected when the bond was issued in exchange for payment of the premiums, not on acceptance of the appeal. As surety, Capital Insurance correctly paid the amount owed and is entitled to reimbursement from the spouses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    53 Quiamco Vs Capital Insurance and Surety Co Inc

    Uploaded by

    Jiana SinoCruz De Guzman
    262 views3 pages
    The spouses Noe and Clarita Quiamco applied for a supersedeas bond from Capital Insurance to appeal a labor case decision. The bond was issued and delivered to the spouses, but they failed to file it within the required 10 day period, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal. Capital Insurance paid the bond amount when a writ of execution was served. It then sued the spouses to recover the amount. The court ruled that the surety agreement between the parties was perfected when the bond was issued in exchange for payment of the premiums, not on acceptance of the appeal. As surety, Capital Insurance correctly paid the amount owed and is entitled to reimbursement from the spouses.

    Original Title

    53 Quiamco vs Capital Insurance and Surety Co Inc.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The spouses Noe and Clarita Quiamco applied for a supersedeas bond from Capital Insurance to appeal a labor case decision. The bond was issued and delivered to the spouses, but they failed to file it within the required 10 day period, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal. Capital Insurance paid the bond amount when a writ of execution was served. It then sued the spouses to recover the amount. The court ruled that the surety agreement between the parties was perfected when the bond was issued in exchange for payment of the premiums, not on acceptance of the appeal. As surety, Capital Insurance correctly paid the amount owed and is entitled to reimbursement from the spouses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    262 views3 pages

    53 Quiamco Vs Capital Insurance and Surety Co Inc

    Uploaded by

    Jiana SinoCruz De Guzman
    The spouses Noe and Clarita Quiamco applied for a supersedeas bond from Capital Insurance to appeal a labor case decision. The bond was issued and delivered to the spouses, but they failed to file it within the required 10 day period, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal. Capital Insurance paid the bond amount when a writ of execution was served. It then sued the spouses to recover the amount. The court ruled that the surety agreement between the parties was perfected when the bond was issued in exchange for payment of the premiums, not on acceptance of the appeal. As surety, Capital Insurance correctly paid the amount owed and is entitled to reimbursement from the spouses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    53. Spouses Noe and Clarita Quiamco vs.

    Capital Insurance
    and Surety Co. Inc.
    2008
    G.R. No. 170852
    Justice Renato Corona
    Case Digest By: DE GUZMAN, Jiana Joselle SC.

    DOCTRINE: Contracts are perfected by mere consent. This is manifested by the


    meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the object and cause which are to
    constitute the contract. Here, the object of the contract was the issuance of the bond.
    The cause or consideration consisted of the premiums paid. The bond was issued
    after petitioners complied with the requirements. At this point, the contract of
    suretyship was perfected.

    FACTS:

    Spouses Noe and Clarita Quiamco applied for a supersedeas bond with respondent
    Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. This bond was required in order to perfect
    their appeal to the NLRC. Accordingly, the bond was issued on May 23, 1997 and
    delivered to petitioners who filed it in the NLRC on May 24, 1997. However, NLRC
    dismissed the appeal for petitioners failure to post the bond within 10 days from
    receipt of the decision (May 7, 1997). This made the decision in the labor case final
    against them.

    Subsequently, a writ of execution was served by the sheriff of the NLRC on


    respondent to collect on the supersedeas bond. This was to fully satisfy the
    judgment amount in the labor case. Respondent paid to the NLRC the amount
    guaranteed by the bond. It notified petitioners and forthwith deposited the undated
    check issued by the spouses to the respondent. It was, however, dishonored because
    the account was already closed.
    Hence, respondent filed in the RTC of Cebu City a complaint for sum of money and
    damages with prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against petitioners. The
    RTC ruled in favor of respondent. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs decision.
    The CA agreed with the RTC that the surety agreement between petitioners and
    respondent had been perfected. Its perfection was not dependent on the acceptance
    by the NLRC of the appeal of petitioners in the labor case. Thus, respondent
    correctly paid the indebtedness of petitioners.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the surety agreement was perfected.

    HELD:

    Contracts are perfected by mere consent. This is manifested by the meeting of the
    offer and the acceptance upon the object and cause which are to constitute the
    contract. Here, the object of the contract was the issuance of the bond. The cause or
    consideration consisted of the premiums paid. The bond was issued after petitioners
    complied with the requirements. At this point, the contract of suretyship was
    perfected.

    Petitioners cannot insist that the contract was subject to a suspensive condition,
    that is, the stay of the judgment of the labor arbiter. This was not a condition for the
    perfection of the contract but merely a statement of the purpose of the bond in its
    whereas clauses. Aside from this, there was no mention of the condition that before
    the contract could become valid and binding, perfection of the appeal was necessary.
    If the intention was to make it a suspensive condition, then the parties should have
    made it clear in certain and unambiguous terms.

    A surety is considered in law to be on the same footing as the principal debtor in


    relation to whatever is adjudged against the latter. Accordingly, as surety of
    petitioners, respondent was obliged to pay on the bond when a writ of execution was
    served on it. Consequently, it now has the right to seek full reimbursement from
    petitioners for the amount paid.
    One final note. It was never respondents obligation to inquire about the deadline for
    which the bond was being issued. It was the duty of petitioners to make sure it was
    filed on time. The delay in filing the bond was purely the result of petitioners
    negligence or oversight. They should bear the consequences.

    You might also like