Scribd
Upload
276 views2 pages

Manila Insurance Company Vs Amurao

Respondent spouses entered into a construction contract with Aegean Construction to build a commercial building. Aegean posted performance bonds from Manila Insurance and Intra Strata to guarantee the project. Aegean failed to complete the project, so respondents filed a complaint against the insurers to collect on the bonds. Manila Insurance argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to an arbitration clause in the original contract. The court denied this claim. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled while Manila Insurance has direct liability as surety, the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the arbitration agreement and directed the case be dismissed.

Uploaded by

jimmie alforque
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
276 views2 pages

Manila Insurance Company Vs Amurao

Respondent spouses entered into a construction contract with Aegean Construction to build a commercial building. Aegean posted performance bonds from Manila Insurance and Intra Strata to guarantee the project. Aegean failed to complete the project, so respondents filed a complaint against the insurers to collect on the bonds. Manila Insurance argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to an arbitration clause in the original contract. The court denied this claim. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled while Manila Insurance has direct liability as surety, the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the arbitration agreement and directed the case be dismissed.

Uploaded by

jimmie alforque
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ALFORQUE

I.SHORT TITLE: Manila Insurance Co. vs Spouses Amurao

II. FULL TITLE: THE MANILA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. SPOUSES ROBERTO
and AIDA AMURAO, G.R. No. 179628, January 16, 2013, DEL CASTILLO, J

III. TOPIC: Credit Transactions - GUARANTY AND SURETYSHIP

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Respondent-spouses Roberto and Aida Amurao entered into a Construction


Contract Agreement (CCA) with Aegean Construction and Development
Corporation (Aegean) for the construction of a six-storey commercial building
in Tomas Morato corner E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City. To guarantee its
full and faithful compliance with the terms and conditions of the CCA, Aegean
posted performance bonds secured by petitioner The Manila Insurance
Company, Inc. (petitioner) and Intra Strata Assurance Corporation (Intra
Strata).

Aegean failed to complete the project, and respondent spouses filed with
the(RTC) a Complaint, against petitioner and Intra Strata to collect on the
performance bonds they issued in the amounts of P2,760,000.00 and
P4,440,000.00, respectively.

During the pre-trial, petitioner and Intra Strata discovered that the CCA
entered into by respondent-spouses and Aegean contained an arbitration
clause. Hence, they filed separate Motions to Dismiss on the grounds of lack
of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.

V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

The RTC denied both motions. Petitioner and Intra Strata separately moved
for reconsideration but their motions were denied by the RTC in its
subsequent Order. Petitioner elevated the case to the CA by way of special
civil action for certiorari. CA dismissed the petition and said that, although
the contract of surety is only an accessory to the principal contract, the
suretys liability is direct, primary and absolute.

VI. ISSUE:

Whether or not Manila Insurance can be held liable as surety of Aegean

VII. RULING:

The petition has merit. We have consistently held that a suretys 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. It bears stressing, however, that
although the contract of suretyship is secondary to the principal contract, the
suretys liability to the obligee is nevertheless direct, primary, and absolute.
In this case, respondent-spouses (obligee) filed with the RTC a Complaint
against petitioner (surety) to collect on the performance bond it issued. But
while there is a cause of action against Manila Insurance, the complaint must
still be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated June 7,


2007 and the Resolution dated September 7, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 96815 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217 1s DIRECTED to
dismiss Civil Case No. Q-01-45573 for lack of jurisdiction.

You might also like