In a claim involving surety bonds, the Supreme Court ruled that strict adherence to the conditions stipulated in the bond is necessary for recovery. Specifically, if a surety bond requires a written claim to be filed within a certain period after the bond’s expiration, failure to comply with this provision means the obligee waives their right to claim against the surety. This decision emphasizes the importance of understanding and complying with the specific terms of surety agreements, as failure to do so can extinguish the surety’s liability, regardless of the underlying default by the principal debtor. This ruling provides clarity on the enforceability of contractual conditions in surety bonds and reinforces the necessity for parties to fulfill their obligations meticulously.

Breach of Contract and Bonded Promises: Can a Technicality Void a Surety’s Obligation?

This case revolves around a contract between Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) and Orlando Kalingo for the fabrication of tollbooths. To secure the down payments, Kalingo obtained two surety bonds from Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC). When Kalingo defaulted, PNCC sought to recover from PCIC, but a dispute arose regarding one of the bonds. The central legal question is whether PNCC’s failure to submit a written claim for one of the bonds within the stipulated timeframe prevents them from recovering under that bond, despite PCIC’s overall liability as a surety.

PNCC engaged Kalingo for the fabrication and delivery of tollbooths, issuing two Purchase Orders (POs) to him. To secure the down payments for these POs, Kalingo obtained two surety bonds from PCIC: Bond No. 27546 and Bond No. 27547. Each bond had a specific expiration date and required PNCC to submit a written claim within 15 days of the expiration date to be able to recover under the bond. PNCC filed a written claim for Bond No. 27547, but not for Bond No. 27546. When Kalingo defaulted, PNCC sued both Kalingo and PCIC to recover the amounts covered by the bonds, however, the suit only explicitly mentioned PCIC Bond No. 27547.

The trial court ruled in favor of PNCC, ordering PCIC to pay the amount covered by Bond No. 27547. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the decision, holding PCIC liable under both bonds, even though PNCC’s complaint only referred to Bond No. 27547. PCIC appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that it should not be held liable under Bond No. 27546 because PNCC had not filed a separate claim for it and the original complaint did not include a claim for this bond. This appeal hinged on the interpretation and enforceability of the written claim provision in the surety bonds.

The Supreme Court addressed PCIC’s argument by emphasizing the importance of the allegations in a complaint. The court stated that the reliefs granted to a litigant are generally limited to those specifically requested in the complaint. While other reliefs may be granted, they must be related to the specific prayers and supported by the evidence on record. The Court looked at what constituted a cause of action, referring to it as “the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another”. In this context, it focused on the elements of a cause of action: a right, an obligation, and a breach.

The Court highlighted that each surety bond represents a distinct contractual agreement, governed by its own specific terms and conditions. Both bonds included a critical ‘written claim provision,’ mandating that PCIC would not be liable for any claim not presented in writing within 15 days from the bond’s expiration date. This requirement was deemed a condition precedent for PCIC’s liability and PNCC’s right to collect under the bonds. Failure to comply with this provision, the Court emphasized, would extinguish PCIC’s liability and constitute a waiver by PNCC of the right to claim or sue under the bond. This underscores the principle that the extent of a surety’s liability is strictly defined by the terms of the suretyship contract.

Citing established jurisprudence, the Supreme Court reiterated that a surety’s liability is determined solely by the clauses within the contract of suretyship and the conditions stated in the bond. This liability cannot be expanded by implication beyond the express terms of the contract. The Court then emphasized the fundamental principle that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the parties and must be complied with in good faith, citing Article 1159 of the Civil Code. This principle underscores the binding nature of contractual agreements and the importance of adhering to the agreed-upon terms.

The Court also acknowledged the freedom of parties to establish stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions in their contracts, as long as they do not violate the law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, in accordance with Article 1306 of the Civil Code. Since the written claim provision in the surety bonds was not shown to be invalid, the Court concluded that the parties were obligated to comply with it strictly and in good faith. The Court pointed out that PNCC had indeed complied with the written claim provision for PCIC Bond No. 27547 by filing an extrajudicial demand, but failed to do so for PCIC Bond No. 27546.

Because PNCC failed to comply with the written claim provision for PCIC Bond No. 27546, the Supreme Court determined that PNCC’s cause of action with respect to that bond did not exist. Therefore, the Court reasoned, no relief for collection under that bond could be validly awarded. The Court found that the trial court’s decision finding PCIC liable only under PCIC Bond No. 27547 was correct, not only because the claim for the other bond was not raised in the complaint but also because no cause of action had arisen concerning that bond. Consequently, the appellate court erred in extending liability to PCIC Bond No. 27546.

PNCC argued that, in line with the CA’s ruling, it should be entitled to collection under PCIC Bond No. 27546 because the bond was attached to the complaint and formed part of the records. They relied on Section 2(c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, which provides for a general prayer for such further or other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable. This rule allows a court to grant relief warranted by the allegations and proof, even if not specifically sought by the injured party.

The Supreme Court ultimately rejected PNCC’s argument. While acknowledging the general prayer rule, the Court clarified that it could not grant PNCC the “other relief” of recovering under PCIC Bond No. 27546 due to the contractual stipulations of the parties. The Court stated:

While it is true that PCIC’s liability under PCIC Bond No. 27546 would have been clear under ordinary circumstances (considering that Kalingo’s default under his contract with PNCC is now beyond dispute), it cannot be denied that the bond contains a written claim provision, and compliance with it is essential for the accrual of PCIC’s liability and PNCC’s right to collect under the bond.

Therefore, the Court held that the trial and appellate courts must respect the terms of the bond and cannot disregard them absent a showing that they are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. The failure to file a written claim within the specified timeframe resulted in a waiver of the right to collect under PCIC Bond No. 27546.

Building on the analysis of the surety bond, the Court concluded that PNCC’s cause of action with respect to PCIC Bond No. 27546 could not exist, and no relief could be validly given. The CA’s judgment regarding PCIC Bond No. 27546 was deemed invalid and was deleted. The Supreme Court did uphold the award of attorney’s fees to PNCC. PCIC’s refusal to pay despite PNCC’s written claim for Bond No. 27547 compelled PNCC to hire legal services.

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the critical importance of meticulously adhering to the specific terms and conditions outlined in surety bonds. Obligees must be vigilant in complying with all requirements, including deadlines for filing written claims, to ensure their rights are fully protected. This ruling serves as a reminder that contractual obligations have the force of law and must be honored in good faith by all parties involved. This approach contrasts with a more lenient view that might prioritize the overall intent of the surety agreement, potentially overlooking technical non-compliance.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether PNCC’s failure to submit a written claim for PCIC Bond No. 27546 within the stipulated timeframe prevented them from recovering under that bond, despite PCIC’s general liability as a surety. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that it did, because PNCC did not comply with the conditions of the bond.
What is a surety bond?	A surety bond is a contract where one party (the surety) guarantees the obligations of a second party (the principal) to a third party (the obligee). In this case, PCIC was the surety, Kalingo was the principal, and PNCC was the obligee.
What was the written claim provision in the surety bonds?	The written claim provision required PNCC to submit a written claim to PCIC within 15 days of the bond’s expiration date to be able to recover under the bond. This was a condition precedent to PCIC’s liability.
Why did PNCC only file a claim for one of the bonds?	The records do not explicitly state why PNCC only filed a claim for Bond No. 27547. The Court noted this discrepancy and stated that PNCC did not provide any explanation for the lack of a claim for Bond No. 27546.
What was the Court of Appeals’ ruling?	The Court of Appeals held PCIC liable under both Bond No. 27546 and Bond No. 27547, even though PNCC’s complaint only referred to Bond No. 27547. This ruling was later modified by the Supreme Court.
What was the Supreme Court’s final decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision in part, holding PCIC liable only under Bond No. 27547. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the written claim provision and the limitations of a court’s ability to grant relief beyond what is specifically requested in the complaint.
Does this ruling affect the enforceability of other contract terms?	Yes, this ruling reinforces the principle that all contractual terms, including those in surety bonds, are binding and must be complied with in good faith. Parties cannot disregard these terms unless they are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
Was the award of attorney’s fees upheld?	Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the award of attorney’s fees to PNCC, because PCIC’s unjust refusal to pay despite PNCC’s written claim for Bond No. 27547 compelled PNCC to seek legal services.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to contractual terms, particularly in surety agreements. This ruling emphasizes the need for obligees to be vigilant in complying with all requirements outlined in the bond, including deadlines for filing written claims, to ensure their rights are fully protected. A proactive approach to understanding and fulfilling these obligations is essential for safeguarding one’s interests in surety arrangements.

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: Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation v. Philippine National Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 185066, October 02, 2009