pnb v independent planters.docx

8/10/2019 PNB v Independent Planters.docx

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-28046 May 16, 1983

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN , plaintiff-appellant,vs.IN!EPEN!ENT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ANTONIO !IMA"UGA, !EL#IN#A$AR!O, CE#ERINO %ALENCIA, MOISES CARAN!ANG, LUCIANO CASTILLO,AURELIO %ALENCIA, LAURO LE%ISTE, GA%INO GON&ALES, LOPE GE%ANA a'(BONI#ACIO LAUREANA, defendants-appellees.

Basa, Ilao, del Rosario Diaz for plaintiff-appellant.

Laurel Law Office for Dimayuga.

Tomas Yumol for a!ardo, defendant-appellee.

PLANA, J.:

ppeal b! the Philippine National "an# $PN"% f&o' the O&de& of the defunct (ou&t of Fi&stInstance of Manila $"&anch ))% in its (ivil (ase No. *+ * dis'issin PN"/s co'plainta ainst seve&al solida&! debto&s fo& the collection of a su' of 'one! on the &ound that oneof the defendants $(efe&ino Valencia% died du&in the pendenc! of the case $i.e., afte& theplaintiff had p&esented its evidence% and the&efo&e the co'plaint, bein a 'one! clai'based on cont&act, should be p&osecuted in the testate o& intestate p&oceedin fo& thesettle'ent of the estate of the deceased defendant pu&suant to Section + of Rule 0+ of theRules of (ou&t 1hich &eads2

S3(. +. "olidary o#ligation of decedent .4 the obli ation of the decedent issolida&! 1ith anothe& debto&, the clai' shall be filed a ainst the decedent as if

he 1e&e the onl! debto&, 1ithout p&e5udice to the &i ht of the estate to &ecove&cont&ibution f&o' the othe& debto&. In a 5oint obli ation of the decedent, theclai' shall be confined to the po&tion belon in to hi'.

The appellant assails the o&de& of dis'issal, invo#in its &i ht of &ecou&se a ainst one, so'eo& all of its solida&! debto&s unde& &ticle 6 + of the (ivil (ode 4


2/4

RT. 6 +. The c&edito& 'a! p&oceed a ainst an! one of the solida&! debto&so& so'e o& all of the' si'ultaneousl!. The de'and 'ade a ainst one ofthe' shall not be an obstacle to those 1hich 'a! subse7uentl! be di&ecteda ainst the othe&s, so lon as the debt has not been full! collected.

The sole issue thus &aised is 1hethe& in an action fo& collection of a su' of 'one! based oncont&act a ainst all the solida&! debto&s, the death of one defendant dep&ives the cou&t of

5u&isdiction to p&oceed 1ith the case a ainst the su&vivin defendants.

It is no1 settled that the 7uoted &ticle 6 + &ants the c&edito& the substantive &i ht to see#satisfaction of his c&edit f&o' one, so'e o& all of his solida&! debto&s, as he dee's fit o&convenient fo& the p&otection of his inte&ests8 and if, afte& institutin a collection suit basedon cont&act a ainst so'e o& all of the' and, du&in its pendenc!, one of the defendantsdies, the cou&t &etains 5u&isdiction to continue the p&oceedin s and decide the case in&espect of the su&vivin defendants. Thus in $anila "urety % idelity &o., Inc. 's. (illarama

et al. , 9 Phil. 0: at 0: , this (ou&t &uled2

(onst&uin Section +:0 of the (ode of (ivil P&ocedu&e f&o' 1hence theafo&e7uoted p&ovision $Sec. +, Rule 0+% 1as ta#en, this (ou&t held that 1he&et1o pe&sons a&e bound in solidum fo& the sa'e debt and one of the' dies,the 1hole indebtedness can be p&oved a ainst the estate of the latte&, thedecedent/s liabilit! bein absolute and p&i'a&!8 and if the clai' is notp&esented 1ithin the ti'e p&ovided b! the &ules, the sa'e 1ill be ba&&ed asagainst t)e estate . It is evident f&o' the fo&e oin that Section + of Rule 0$no1 Rule 0+% p&ovides the p&ocedu&e s)ould t)e creditor desire to go against

t)e deceased de#tor , but the&e is ce&tainl! nothin in the said p&ovision'a#in co'pliance 1ith such p&ocedu&e a condition p&ecedent befo&e ano&dina&! action a ainst the su&vivin solida&! debto&s, should the c&edito&choose to de'and pa!'ent f&o' the latte&, could be ente&tained to the e;tentthat failu&e to obse&ve the sa'e 1ould dep&ive the cou&t 5u&isdiction to ta#eco ni6 at >6>->6*, this (ou&t, spea#in th&u M&.?ustice Ma#asia&, &eite&ated the doct&ine.

cu&so&! pe&usal of Section +, Rule 0+ of the Revised Rules of(ou&t &eveals that nothin the&ein p&events a c&edito& f&o'p&oceedin a ainst the su&vivin solida&! debto&s. Said


3/4

p&ovision 'e&el! sets up the p&ocedu&e in enfo&cincollection in case a creditor c)ooses to pursue )isclaim a ainst the estate of the deceased solida&!, debto&.

It is c&!stal clea& that &ticle 6 + of the Ne1 (ivil (ode is the

applicable p&ovision in this 'atte&. Said p&ovision ives thec&edito& the &i ht to /p&oceed a ainst an!one of the solida&!debto&s o& so'e o& all of the' si'ultaneousl!./ T)e c)oice isundou#tedly left to t)e solidary, creditor to determine againstw)om )e will enforce collection . In case of the death of one ofthe solida&! debto&s, he $the c&edito&% 'a!, if he so chooses,p&oceed a ainst the su&vivin solida&! debto&s 1ithoutnecessit! of filin a clai' in the estate of the deceaseddebto&s. It is not mandatory for )im to )a'e t)e case dismissedagainst t)e sur'i'ing de#tors and file its claim in t)e estate of

t)e deceased solidary de#tor . . .

s co&&ectl! a& ued b! petitione&, if Section +, Rule 0+ of theRevised Rules of (ou&t 1e&e applied lite&all!, &ticle 6 + of theNe1 (ivil (ode 1ould, in effect, be &epealed since unde& theRules of (ou&t, petitione& has no choice but to p&oceed a ainstthe estate of Manuel "a&&edo onl!. Obviousl!, this p&ovisiondi'inishes the "an#/s &i ht unde& the Ne1 (ivil, (ode top&oceed a ainst an! one, so'e o& all of the solida&! debto&s.Such a const&uction is not sanctioned b! the p&inciple, 1hich is

too 1ell settled to &e7ui&e citation, that a substantive la1 cannotbe a'ended b! a p&ocedu&al &ule. Othe&1ise sta&ed, Section +,Rule 0+ of the Revised Rules of (ou&t cannot be 'ade top&evail ove& &ticle 6 + of the Ne1 (ivil (ode, the fo&'e&bein 'e&el! p&ocedu&al, 1hile the latte&, substantive.

@A3R3FOR3 the appealed o&de& of dis'issal of the cou&t a uo in its (ivil (ase No.*+ * is he&eb! set aside in &espect of the su&vivin defendants8 and the case is &e'andedto the co&&espondin Re ional T&ial (ou&t fo& p&oceedin s. p&oceedin s. No costs.

SO ORD3R3D.

Tee)an ee / cta. &.0.1, 2scolin )) (as uez and 3utierrez, 0r., 00., concur.

$elencio-4errera and Relo'a, 00., is on lea'e.


4/4

#oo*'o*+

BB M&. ?ustice 3scolin 1as desi nated to sit 1ith the Fi&st Division unde&Special O&de& No. 6* dated p&il 60, :0>.

pnb v independent planters.docx

Documents