In the case of Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. v. United Coconut Planters Bank General Insurance Co., Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that a surety agreement is independent of the principal contract between a creditor and a debtor, and a surety cannot invoke an arbitration clause in the principal contract to avoid its obligations. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a surety is liable for interest on delayed payments from the date of the extrajudicial demand, provided the delay is not excusable. This means creditors can directly pursue sureties for debt recovery without being bound by arbitration agreements in the principal contracts, and sureties face interest charges for unjustified payment delays.
nn
Surety vs. Arbitration: Can a Surety Hide Behind the Principal’s Contract?
nn
This case arose from a purchase order between Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. (Gilat) and One Virtual for telecommunications equipment. To ensure payment, One Virtual obtained a surety bond from UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. (UCPB). When One Virtual failed to pay Gilat, Gilat demanded payment from UCPB based on the surety bond. UCPB refused to pay, citing advice from One Virtual that Gilat had breached the Purchase Agreement. Gilat sued UCPB to recover the guaranteed amount, plus interests and expenses.
nn
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Gilat, ordering UCPB to pay the guaranteed amount with legal interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, holding that the arbitration clause in the Purchase Agreement between Gilat and One Virtual was binding on UCPB as the surety, and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. Gilat then appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the CA erred in ordering arbitration and whether it was entitled to legal interest due to UCPB’s delay.
nn
The Supreme Court framed the central issue as whether a surety can invoke an arbitration clause in the principal contract between the creditor and the principal debtor. It also considered whether the creditor is entitled to legal interest due to the surety’s delay in fulfilling its obligations. The Court emphasized the distinct nature of a surety agreement, highlighting that it is ancillary to the principal contract but imposes direct and primary liability on the surety.
nn
The Court articulated the nature of suretyship with the following definition:
nn
In suretyship, the oft-repeated rule is that a surety’s liability is joint and solidary with that of the principal debtor. This undertaking makes a surety agreement an ancillary contract, as it presupposes the existence of a principal contract. Nevertheless, although the contract of a surety is in essence secondary only to a valid principal obligation, its liability to the creditor or “promise” of the principal is said to be direct, primary and absolute; in other words, a surety is directly and equally bound with the principal.
nn
The Supreme Court clarified that the acceptance of a surety agreement does not grant the surety the right to intervene in the principal contract. The surety’s role begins only when the debtor defaults, at which point the surety becomes directly liable to the creditor as a solidary obligor. Citing Stronghold Insurance Co. Inc. v. Tokyu Construction Co. Ltd.,[38] the Court stated that:
nn
[T]he acceptance [of a surety agreement], however, does not change in any material way the creditor’s relationship with the principal debtor nor does it make the surety an active party to the principal creditor-debtor relationship. In other words, the acceptance does not give the surety the right to intervene in the principal contract. The surety’s role arises only upon the debtor’s default, at which time, it can be directly held liable by the creditor for payment as a solidary obligor.
nn
The Supreme Court underscored the principle that arbitration agreements bind only the parties involved and their successors, as enshrined in Article 1311 of the Civil Code. The court stated that:
nn
An arbitration agreement being contractual in nature, it is binding only on the parties thereto, as well as their assigns and heirs.
nn
Building on this principle, the Court determined that UCPB, as a surety, could not invoke the arbitration clause in the Purchase Agreement because it was not a party to that agreement.
nn
The Court also addressed the issue of interest on the delayed payment. It reiterated Article 2209 of the Civil Code, which provides that if an obligation involves the payment of money and the debtor delays, the indemnity for damages is the payment of the agreed-upon interest or, in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest. Delay occurs when the obligee demands performance, and the obligor fails to comply.
nn
Here’s a comparison of the interest claim:
nn
| Party | Claim |
|---|---|
| Petitioner (Gilat) | Legal interest of 12% per annum from the first demand on June 5, 2000, or at most, from the second demand on January 24, 2001. |
| Respondent (UCPB) | Liable for legal interest of 6% per annum from the date of petitioner’s last demand on January 24, 2001. |
nn
The Supreme Court emphasized that for delay to merit interest, it must be inexcusable. It found that UCPB’s delay was not justified by One Virtual’s advice regarding Gilat’s alleged breach of obligations. The Court pointed to the RTC’s finding that Gilat had delivered and installed the equipment, and One Virtual had defaulted on its payments.
nn
The Court emphasized that the interest should accrue from the first extrajudicial demand, aligning with Article 1169 of the Civil Code. Given that UCPB failed to pay on May 30, 2000, and Gilat sent its first demand on June 5, 2000, the Court ruled that interest should run from the date of the first demand. The Court, citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[62] also adjusted the interest rate to 6% per annum from June 5, 2000, until the satisfaction of the debt, in accordance with prevailing guidelines.
nn
FAQs
n
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether a surety can invoke an arbitration clause in the principal contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, and whether the creditor is entitled to legal interest due to the surety’s delay in fulfilling its obligations. |
| What is a surety agreement? | A surety agreement is a contract where one party (the surety) guarantees the debt or obligation of another party (the principal debtor) to a third party (the creditor). The surety becomes jointly and solidarily liable with the principal debtor. |
| Can a surety be forced into arbitration based on the principal contract? | No, a surety cannot be forced into arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the principal contract if the surety is not a party to that contract. Arbitration agreements are binding only on the parties involved and their successors. |
| When does a surety become liable for interest on a debt? | A surety becomes liable for interest on a debt from the time the creditor makes a judicial or extrajudicial demand for payment, provided the delay in payment is not excusable. |
| What is the legal interest rate applicable in this case? | The legal interest rate applicable in this case is 6% per annum from the date of the first extrajudicial demand until the satisfaction of the debt. |
| What should a creditor do if a surety refuses to pay? | A creditor can file a lawsuit directly against the surety to recover the debt, without first having to proceed against the principal debtor. |
| Can a surety invoke defenses available to the principal debtor? | While a surety can invoke defenses inherent in the debt, it cannot invoke an arbitration clause in the principal contract to avoid its obligations to the creditor. |
| What is the significance of the first extrajudicial demand? | The first extrajudicial demand is significant because it marks the point from which interest on the debt begins to accrue, provided the delay in payment is not excusable. |
nn
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the independence of surety agreements from principal contracts, ensuring that creditors can directly pursue sureties for debt recovery without being entangled in arbitration agreements. This ruling provides clarity on the obligations and liabilities of sureties, promoting confidence in financial transactions.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
n
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: Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. v. United Coconut Planters Bank General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 189563, April 07, 2014
Leave a Reply