FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241533. January 7, 2019.]
PEOPLE'S GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 7, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241533 — People's General Insurance Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau of Customs, Respondent.
The Motion for Extension of Time filed by the petitioner seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on September 7, 2018 within which to file its Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure to show that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145027 committed any reversible error.
As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the contingency covered by the surety agreement had already occurred that brought about the surety's liability under the customs bonds, as these had already matured without any proof of their liquidation.
Moreover, the alleged failure to furnish the petitioner's clients-importers notices of demand was no reason for the Regional Trial Court to grant petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Upon Demurrer to Evidence. Palmares v. Court of Appeals1 has elucidated on the matter of the non-necessity of demand upon the principal debtor prior to making a surety liable, viz.: TIADCc
Even if it were otherwise, demand on the sureties is not necessary before bringing suit against them, since the commencement of the suit is a sufficient demand. On this point, it may be worth mentioning that a surety is not even entitled, as a matter of right, to be given notice of the principal's default. Inasmuch as the creditor owes no duty of active diligence to take care of the interest of the surety, his mere failure to voluntarily give information to the surety of the default of the principal cannot have the effect of discharging the surety. The surety is bound to take notice of the principal's default and to perform the obligation. He cannot complain that the creditor has not notified him in the absence of a special agreement to that effect in the contract of suretyship.
The alleged failure of respondent corporation to prove the fact of demand on the principal debtors, by not attaching copies thereof to its pleadings, is likewise immaterial. In the absence of a statutory or contractual requirement, it is not necessary that payment or performance of his obligation be first demanded of the principal, especially where demand would have been useless; nor is it a requisite, before proceeding against the sureties, that the principal be called on to account. The underlying principle therefor is that a suretyship is a direct contract to pay the debt of another. A surety is liable as much as his principal is liable, and absolutely liable as soon as default is made, without any demand upon the principal whatsoever or any notice of default. As an original promisor and debtor from the beginning, he is held ordinarily to know every default of his principal.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the assailed August 13, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145027. AIDSTE
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, C.J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2632 dated December 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 351 Phil. 664 (1998).