Allied Banking Corp. v. De Guzman
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Eduardo De Guzman, Sr., along with other incorporators of Yeson International Philippines, Inc., executed a Continuing Guaranty/Comprehensive Surety on February 14, 1990, binding themselves jointly and severally for the company's obligations to Allied Banking Corporation (now PNB). The company incurred obligations through six (6) trust receipts and a consolidated Promissory Note. A second surety agreement was executed on June 23, 1993, by other incorporators, but De Guzman had no participation in this subsequent agreement. 2. Procedural History: PNB filed a complaint for sum of money against De Guzman and other sureties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found all defendants liable. De Guzman appealed, but later sought to withdraw his appeal and file a motion for new trial, alleging lack of knowledge and improper service of summons. The RTC granted this motion, set aside its initial decision, and allowed De Guzman to present evidence. After reception of evidence, the RTC dismissed the complaint against De Guzman and Katigbak, finding that De Guzman had revoked his suretyship prior to the second agreement, and Katigbak's signature was forged. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, finding that De Guzman sufficiently proved his revocation and that PNB failed to object to the presentation of evidence regarding this defense. 3. The Petition: Petitioner PNB filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in concluding De Guzman was not liable despite his personal capacity surety execution, that the second surety agreement did not supersede the first, that De Guzman failed to prove revocation by preponderance of evidence, and that the RTC and CA should not have considered evidence of revocation not raised in the pleadings. PNB contends that the lower courts' findings were not supported by the evidence on record.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's finding that respondent Eduardo De Guzman, Sr. sufficiently proved the revocation of his suretyship agreement. Whether the presentation of evidence regarding the revocation of the suretyship agreement, despite not being raised in the pleadings, was permissible under the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of revocation of the suretyship agreement: The Court reiterated that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised, and findings of fact by the lower courts, especially when affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive. The Court found that the RTC and CA findings were duly supported by evidence. De Guzman presented an original copy of his September 4, 1991 letter of revocation, its corresponding registry receipt, and a Certification from the Postmaster of Muntinlupa City that the letter was posted for mailing. These pieces of evidence raised a disputable presumption that the letter was received by PNB in the regular course of mail, pursuant to Section 3(v), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. The Court noted that the presumption arises when a mail matter is properly addressed with postage prepaid and mailed, and the registry receipt is sufficient evidence of mailing. PNB failed to overcome this presumption with clear and convincing evidence, offering only a bare, self-serving denial. Therefore, the courts below correctly found that De Guzman had indeed revoked the first surety agreement, absolving him from liability for subsequent obligations. On the issue of allowing evidence not raised in the pleadings: The Court held that PNB's procedural argument that the RTC and CA should not have allowed De Guzman to present evidence of revocation, as it was not raised in his pleadings, was unmeritorious. The appellate court correctly noted that PNB failed to timely object to the presentation of this evidence during the trial. PNB extensively cross-examined De Guzman after he testified about the revocation letter. By PNB's implied consent, the matter of revocation was treated as if it had been raised in the pleadings, in accordance with Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, which allows issues not raised in the pleadings to be tried with the express or implied consent of the parties.
Main Doctrine
A surety agreement, being a continuing guaranty, remains in full force until written notice of revocation is received by the creditor. The presumption of receipt of a mailed revocation notice can be overcome by contrary evidence, and the burden shifts to the sender to prove receipt. However, if the opposing party fails to object to the presentation of evidence on an issue not raised in the pleadings, it is deemed tried with implied consent, and the issue is treated as if it were pleaded.