In Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation v. Con-Field Construction and Development Corporation, the Supreme Court affirmed that a surety is liable for the principal’s failure to fulfill a subcontract, even if the original subcontractor terminates the agreement due to its inability to perform. This case highlights the importance of a surety’s solidary obligation to ensure the completion of a project when the subcontractor defaults. The ruling underscores that the termination of a contract by a subcontractor, due to its own deficiencies, does not release the surety from its responsibility to cover the costs arising from the default.

Unforeseen Troubles: Can a Surety Avoid Liability When a Subcontractor Quits?

Con-Field Construction and Development Corporation (Con-Field) contracted with ABS-CBN Corporation to install an air-conditioning system. Con-Field then subcontracted the work to Freezinhot, requiring a performance bond. Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation (EASCO) issued this bond. Subsequently, Freezinhot struggled with the project and asked to terminate the contract. Con-Field agreed to the termination, took over the project, and then sued Freezinhot and EASCO to recover the costs of completing the work and to claim the performance bond. The central issue was whether EASCO, as the surety, was still liable for the performance bond after Freezinhot terminated the subcontract due to its inability to fulfill the contract.

EASCO argued it should not be held liable because Freezinhot’s principal obligation was extinguished when Con-Field accepted Freezinhot’s termination. Moreover, EASCO claimed that the actual arrangement was a prohibited “labor-only” subcontract, invalidating the principal agreement. Building on this principle, EASCO argued that the surety should not be held liable when the principal obligation did not materialize as initially planned. However, the Court noted that EASCO failed to raise the “labor-only” subcontract issue during the trial and appellate proceedings, thus barring its consideration at this stage. Therefore, the Supreme Court focused on whether the termination of the agreement between Con-Field and Freezinhot released EASCO from its surety obligations.

The Supreme Court found that the termination of the subcontract by Freezinhot did not extinguish its obligation, nor did it release EASCO from its surety obligations. According to the Court, Con-Field’s acceptance of Freezinhot’s termination was merely an acknowledgment of Freezinhot’s inability to perform, not a waiver of its rights under the agreement. Article VI of the subcontract expressly stipulated Con-Field’s right to take over the work and charge any excess costs to Freezinhot and its sureties. This provision allowed Con-Field to recover additional expenses from EASCO.

ARTICLE VI

FAILURE TO COMPLETE; LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; RIGHT TO TAKE OVER

Whereas time being of the essence in this Agreement and it is agreed that the CONTRACTOR [herein respondent] would suffer losses by the delay or failure of the SUB-CONTRACTOR [Freezinhot] to have the work contracted for completed in all parts within the time stipulated in Article IV above… the CONTRACTOR shall have the right to take over the construction and/or installation work either by itself or through another SUB-CONTRACTOR charging against the SUB-CONTRACTOR and its sureties any excess cost occasioned the CONTRACTOR, thereby, together with any liquidated damages that may be due to the CONTRACTOR under this Article.

The Supreme Court emphasized that EASCO’s obligation as a surety was solidary with Freezinhot, meaning EASCO was directly and equally responsible for fulfilling the terms of the bond. The terms of the surety bond stated that EASCO would be liable if Freezinhot failed to comply with the subcontract, and Freezinhot had clearly failed to do so. The Court reiterated the principle that when contract terms are clear and leave no doubt about the parties’ intentions, the literal meaning of the stipulations governs. Therefore, EASCO was bound to cover the additional costs Con-Field incurred to complete the project due to Freezinhot’s default.

The Court referenced related provisions of the Civil Code to reinforce their decision. Specifically, Articles 2052 and 2076 of the Civil Code state that a guaranty is linked to the validity and existence of the principal obligation. Here, Freezinhot’s obligation remained valid even with its early termination, thus binding EASCO to the terms of the suretyship agreement. Moreover, Con-Field’s acceptance of Freezinhot’s decision was not viewed as a compromise, but as a practical step to mitigate losses by ensuring the project’s completion.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a surety company is liable for a performance bond when the subcontractor terminates the contract due to its own inability to complete the work.
What is a performance bond?	A performance bond is a surety agreement where a surety company guarantees the fulfillment of a contract by another party. If the party fails to perform as agreed, the surety is liable to compensate the injured party.
Was there a valid termination of the subcontract?	Yes, the subcontract was terminated by Freezinhot due to its inability to perform, which Con-Field acknowledged without waiving its rights under the agreement.
Did Con-Field waive its rights by accepting the termination?	No, the Court held that Con-Field’s acceptance was not a waiver but a practical decision to mitigate losses by completing the project. The contract allowed Con-Field to take over and charge the costs to Freezinhot and its surety.
What is the extent of EASCO’s liability?	EASCO was held solidarily liable with Freezinhot for the performance bond amount. EASCO had to cover the costs incurred by Con-Field to complete the project up to the value of the bond.
Was the issue of “labor-only” contracting considered by the Supreme Court?	No, this issue was not raised in the lower courts and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not consider it.
What does “solidarily liable” mean?	Being “solidarily liable” means that each party is individually and jointly responsible for the entire debt. The creditor can seek full payment from any or all of the debtors.
What is the significance of Article VI of the subcontract?	Article VI was crucial because it allowed Con-Field to take over the project upon Freezinhot’s failure and to charge any excess costs to Freezinhot and its sureties.
Can EASCO recover the payment made under the performance bond?	Yes, the RTC ordered Freezinhot to indemnify EASCO for any payments made under the performance bond, including interests, based on their indemnity agreement.

In conclusion, Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation v. Con-Field Construction and Development Corporation clarifies the liability of surety companies when subcontractors default. The case confirms that termination of a subcontract due to the subcontractor’s own inability does not release the surety from its obligation to cover the resulting costs. It also shows the need to raise all arguments promptly in trial and the critical importance of clearly worded contracts to protect all parties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation v. Con-Field Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 159731, April 22, 2008