Hing Siong v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 30, 1920, Catalino Concepcion, acting as a customs broker for his Chinese principal, Ong Siong Kang (alias Gui Chiong), procured the delivery of two shipments of goods from Kobe, Japan, against two bonds for the production of the corresponding bills of lading. The bonds stated that Catalino Concepcion, as customs broker for Ong Siong Kang, and Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., were held and firmly bound unto the Government of the Philippine Islands. Ong Siong Kang was also a signatory to the bonds. Procedural History: The surety, Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., satisfied the liability under both bonds. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., to recover from both Catalino Concepcion and Ong Siong Kang the amount paid by the Guarantee Co. as surety. The Petition: Catalino Concepcion appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that he should not be held personally liable, or at least his liability should be limited to P4,000, the amount of the bond given by him as customs broker.
Issue(s)
Whether Catalino Concepcion made himself personally liable by the manner in which he intervened in the execution of the bonds. Whether Catalino Concepcion's liability should be limited to P4,000.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding Catalino Concepcion personally liable on the bonds and rejecting his claim for limited liability.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of personal liability: The Court held that Catalino Concepcion made himself personally liable on the bonds. The wording of the bond, which stated "Catalino Concepcion, customs broker for Ong Siong Kang, of Manila, P. I., as principal and Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., as sureties are held and firmly bound...", along with the fact that his principal, Ong Siong Kang, was also a signatory, led the Court to conclude that the phrase "customs broker for Ong Siong Kang, of Manila" was merely descriptio personae. This means it described his role or capacity but did not limit his personal obligation. The Court found it impossible to maintain that Concepcion signed only as a broker when his principal also signed for himself. Therefore, Concepcion was jointly and severally bound with the surety. On the issue of limited liability: The Court rejected Concepcion's argument that his liability should be limited to P4,000, the alleged amount of the bond given by him as customs broker. The Court distinguished this case from Government of the Philippine Islands and Collector of Customs vs. Tienza, G. R. No. 21567, where the document expressly limited the broker's liability. In the present case, the extent of the liability was fixed at the amounts stated in the respective bonds (P18,950 and P13,500), and there was no ground for the suggested limitation. The Court emphasized that the liability is fixed at the amount stated in the respective bonds, and no limitation was provided for.
Main Doctrine
A customs broker who signs a bond, even with the notation of his capacity as broker for a principal, becomes personally liable thereon if his principal is also a signatory to the same bond, as the notation is considered merely 'descriptio personae' and does not limit his liability.