Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
-Upon the BSP's request, the audit was deferred for thirty (30) days. The BSP then filed a Petition for
Prohibition with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order before the
COA.
ISSUES: W/N the BSP is a public corporation and is subject to COAs audit jurisdiction.
PROVISIONS:
-Commonwealth Act No. 111 (Boy Scout Charter), or An Act to Create a Public Corporation to be
Known as the Boy Scouts of the Philippines, and to Define its Powers and Purposes: Section 3.The
purpose of this corporation shall be to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other
agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to
teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods which are now
in common use by boy scouts.
-Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the Constitution provides that COA shall have the power, authority,
and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters
-ART II- Section 13 of the Constitution. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nationbuilding and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social wellbeing. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in
public and civic affairs.
Article 44 of the Civil Code:
The following are juridical persons:
(1)The State and its political subdivisions;
(2)Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose created by law;
their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law;
(3)Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the law
grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member
RULING + RATIO: Yes. BSP is a public corporation and its funds are subject to the COA's audit
jurisdiction.
The BSP is a public corporation whose functions relate to the fostering of public virtues of citizenship
and patriotism and the general improvement of the moral spirit and fiber of the youth. The functions of
the BSP include, among others, the teaching to the youth of patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and
kindred virtues, are undeniably sovereign functions enshrined under the Constitution. Any attempt to
classify the BSP as a private corporation would be incomprehensible since no less than the law which
created it had designated it as a public corporation and its statutory mandate embraces performance
of sovereign functions. The manner of creation and the purpose for which the BSP was created
indubitably prove that it is a government agency.
Moreover, there are three classes of juridical persons under Article 44 of the Civil Code and the BSP,
as presently constituted under Republic Act No. 7278, falls under the second classification.
The purpose of the BSP as stated in its amended charter shows that it was created in order to
implement a State policy declared in Article II, Section 13 of the Constitution.
Evidently, the BSP, which was created by a special law to serve a public purpose in pursuit of a
constitutional mandate, comes within the class of "public corporations" defined by paragraph 2, Article
44 of the Civil Code and governed by the law which creates it.
SSS (respondent) and Lirag Textile Mills (Petitioner) entered into a Purchased
Agreement which Respondent agreed to purchase preferred stocks of Petitioner worth
P1 million subject to conditions:
Issue:
1
2
3
Whether or not the Purchase Agreement entered into by the Parties is a debt
instrument?
If so, Is Basilio liable as surety?
Whether or not Lirag is liable for the interest as liquidated damages?
Held:
1
YES, the Purchase Agreement is a debt instrument. The terms and conditions of the
Agreement show that parties intended the repurchase of preferred shares on the
respective scheduled dates to be an absolute obligation, which does not depend on
the financial ability of the corporation.
o This absolute obligation on the part of the Petitioner corporation is made manifest
by the fact that a surety was required to see to it that the obligation is fulfilled in
the event the principal debtors inability to do so.
o It cannot be said that SSS is a preferred stockholder. The rights given by the
Purchase Agreement to SSS are not rights enjoyed by ordinary stockholders. Since
there was a condition that failure to repurchase the stocks on the scheduled dates
renders the entire obligation due and demandable with interest. These features
clearly show that intent of the parties to be bound therein as debtor and creditor
and not as a corporation and stockholder.
YES, Basilio is liable as surety. Thus it follows that he cannot deny liability for Lirags
default. As surety, he is bound immediately to pay SSS the amount then outstanding.
Willex vs Ca
CIVIL LAW; SPECIAL CONTRACTS; GUARANTY; THE CONSIDERATION NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT A SURETY OBLIGATION NEED NOT PASS DIRECTLY TO THE SURETY, A
CONSIDERATION MOVING TO THE PRINCIPAL ALONE IS SUFFICIENT. - Willex Plastic argues
that the Continuing Guaranty, being an accessory contract, cannot legally exist because of the
absence of a valid principal obligation. Its contention is based on the fact that it is not a party
either to the Continuing Surety Agreement or to the loan agreement between Manilabank and
Inter-Resin Industrial. Put in another way the consideration necessary to support a surety
obligation need not pass directly to the surety, a consideration moving to the principal alone being
sufficient. For a guarantor or surety is bound by the same consideration that makes the contract
effective between the principal parties thereto. . . . It is never necessary that a guarantor or surety
should receive any part or benefit, if such there be, accruing to his principal.
ID.; ID.; ID.; ALTHOUGH A CONTRACT OF SURETY IS ORDINARILY NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS
RETROSPECTIVE, IN THE END THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AS REVEALED BY THE
EVIDENCE IS CONTROLLING. - Willex Plastic contends that the Continuing Guaranty cannot be
retroactively applied so as to secure the payments made by Interbank under the two Continuing
Surety Agreements. Willex Plastic invokes the ruling in El Vencedor v. Canlas (44 Phil. 699 [1923])
and Dio v. Court of Appeals (216 SCRA 9 [1992]) in support of its contention that a contract of
suretyship or guaranty should be applied prospectively. The cases cited are, however, distinguishable
from the present case. In El Vencedor v. Canlas we held that a contract of suretyship is not
retrospective and no liability attaches for defaults occurring before it is entered into unless an intent to
be so liable is indicated. There we found nothing in the contract to show that the parties intended the
surety bonds to answer for the debts contracted previous to the execution of the bonds. In contrast, in
this case, the parties to the Continuing Guaranty clearly provided that the guaranty would cover
sums obtained and/or to be obtained by Inter-Resin Industrial from Interbank. On the other hand, in
Dio v. Court of Appeals the issue was whether the sureties could be held liable for an obligation
contracted after the execution of the continuing surety agreement. It was held that by its very nature
a continuing suretyship contemplates a future course of dealing. It is prospective in its operation and
is generally intended to provide security with respect to future transactions. By no means, however,
was it meant in that case that in all instances a contract of guaranty or suretyship should be
prospective in application. Indeed, as we also held in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Foerster, (49
Phil. 843 [1926]) although a contract of suretyship is ordinarily not to be construed as retrospective, in
the end the intention of the parties as revealed by the evidence is controlling. What was said there
applies mutatis mutandis to the case at bar: In our opinion, the appealed judgment is erroneous. It is
very true that bonds or other contracts of suretyship are ordinarily not to be construed as
retrospective, but that rule must yield to the intention of the contracting parties as revealed by the
evidence, and does not interfere with the use of the ordinary tests and canons of interpretation which
apply in regard to other contracts. In the present case the circumstances so clearly indicate that the
bond given by Echevarria was intended to cover all of the indebtedness of the Arrocera upon its
current account with the plaintiff Bank that we cannot possibly adopt the view of the court below in
regard to the effect of the bond.
Facts: Sometime in 1978, Inter-Resin Industrial Corporation opened a letter of credit with the Manila
Banking Corporation. To secure payment of the credit accommodation, Inter-Resin Industrial and the
Investment and Underwriting Corporation of the Philippines (IUCP) executed two documents, both
entitled Continuing Surety Agreement and dated December 1, 1978, whereby they bound
themselves solidarily to pay Manilabank obligations of every kind, on which the [Inter-Resin
Industrial] may now be indebted or hereafter become indebted to the [Manilabank]. On April 2, 1979,
Inter-Resin Industrial, together with Willex Plastic Industries Corp., executed a Continuing Guaranty
in favor of IUCP whereby For and in consideration of the sum or sums obtained and/or to be
obtained by Inter-Resin Industrial Corporation from IUCP, Inter-Resin Industrial and Willex Plastic
jointly and severally guaranteed the prompt and punctual payment at maturity of the NOTE/S issued
by the DEBTOR/S . . . to the extent of the aggregate principal sum of FIVE MILLION PESOS
(P5,000,000.00) Philippine Currency and such interests, charges and penalties as hereafter may be
specified. On January 7, 1981, following demand upon it, IUCP paid to Manilabank the sum of
P4,334,280.61 representing Inter-Resin Industrials outstanding obligation. (Exh. M-1) On February
23 and 24, 1981, Atrium Capital Corp., which in the meantime had succeeded IUCP, demanded from
Inter-Resin Industrial and Willex Plastic the payment of what it (IUCP) had paid to Manilabank. As
neither one of the sureties paid, Atrium filed this case in the court below against Inter-Resin Industrial
and Willex Plastic.
On August 11, 1982, Inter-Resin Industrial paid Interbank, which had in turn succeeded Atrium, the
sum of P687,500.00 representing the proceeds of its fire insurance policy for the destruction of its
properties.
In its answer, Inter-Resin Industrial admitted that the Continuing Guaranty was intended to secure
payment to Atrium of the amount of P4,334,280.61 which the latter had paid to Manilabank. It
claimed, however, that it had already fully paid its obligation to Atrium Capital.