Scribd
Upload
311 views1 page

Reparations Commission v. Universal Deep Sea Fishing

This case involved a dispute over a contract for the purchase and sale of fishing boats between the Reparations Commission, Universal Deep Sea Fishing, and the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. as the surety. The Reparations Commission delivered boats to Universal, who was required to make payments, and Manila Surety acted as guarantor. The Reparations Commission sued both Universal and Manila Surety for unpaid amounts. Manila Surety argued the suit was premature but also filed a cross-claim against Universal. The court ruled that a down payment by Universal should be applied to the guaranteed portion of the debt, reducing Manila Surety's liability. However, installment payments had also come due under the contract, so

Uploaded by

wuplawschool
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
311 views1 page

Reparations Commission v. Universal Deep Sea Fishing

This case involved a dispute over a contract for the purchase and sale of fishing boats between the Reparations Commission, Universal Deep Sea Fishing, and the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. as the surety. The Reparations Commission delivered boats to Universal, who was required to make payments, and Manila Surety acted as guarantor. The Reparations Commission sued both Universal and Manila Surety for unpaid amounts. Manila Surety argued the suit was premature but also filed a cross-claim against Universal. The court ruled that a down payment by Universal should be applied to the guaranteed portion of the debt, reducing Manila Surety's liability. However, installment payments had also come due under the contract, so

Uploaded by

wuplawschool
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/ 1

Reparations Commission v.

Universal Deep Sea Fishing


A.M. No. 21901-96, 27 June 1978
CONCEPCION JR., J.
FACTS:
Universal Deep Sea Fishing acquired 6 trawl boats by the Reparations
Commission to be delivered two at a time and a Contract Purchase and Sale of
Reparations Goods between the parties. The Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. Inc. was the
surety of UNIVERSAL to indemnify the Reparations in case of damage or loss. Now
after the Reparations have given all the boats they were now filing a suit against
UNIVERSAL and the Manila Surety to pay the amount of the boats. The surety
company now contends that the action is premature, but set up a cross-claim against
UNIVERSAL for reimbursement of whatever amount of money it may have to pay
judgment, plaintiff by reason of judgment, complaint, including interest, and for
judgment, collection of accumulated and unpaid premiums on judgment, bonds with
interest thereon.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the paying of the down payment by UNIVERSAL to Reparations
Commission guaranteed indebtedness.

RULING:
Surety company, under Article 1254 of judgment, Civil Code, where there is no
imputation of payment made by either judgment, debtor or creditor, The debt which is
the most onerous to the debtor shall be deemed to have been satisfied, so that the
amount of P10,000.00 paid by UNIVERSAL as down payment on the purchase of the,
M/S UNIFISH 1 and M/S UNIFISH 2 should be applied to the guaranteed portion of the
debt, this releasing part of the liability hence the obligation of the surety company shall
be only P43,643.00, instead of P53,643.00.
The rules contained in Articles 1252 to 1254 of judgment, Civil Code apply to a
person owing several debts of judgment, same kind to a single creditor. They cannot be
made applicable to a person whose obligation as a mere surety is both contingent and
singular, which in this case is the full and faithful compliance with the terms of the
contract of conditional purchase and sale of reparations goods. The obligation included
the payment, not only of the first installment but also of the ten (10) equal yearly
installments. The amount of P10,000.00 was, indeed, deducted from judgment, amount
of P53,643.00, but then judgment, first of judgment, ten (10) equal yearly installments
had also accrued, hence, no error was committed to holding judgment, surety company
to judgment, the full extent of its undertaking.

You might also like