PNB vs Independent Planters Assoc (Civil Law)

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, 
vs.
INDEPENDENT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ANTONIO DIMAYUGA, DELFIN FAJARDO, CEFERINO VALENCIA, MOISES CARANDANG, LUCIANO CASTILLO, AURELIO VALENCIA, LAURO LEVISTE, GAVINO GONZALES, LOPE GEVANA and BONIFACIO LAUREANA, defendants-appellees.

G.R. No. L-28046 May 16, 1983

PLANA, J.:

FACTS:

PNB filed with a now defunct CFI in Manila a complaint for the collection of a sum of money against several solidary debtors. After PNB had presented its evidence, one of the defendants, Ceferino Valencia, died. Thus, the CFI dismissed the action, holding that the complaint, being a money claim based on contract, should be prosecuted in the testate or intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased defendant pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court which reads:

SEC. 6. Solidary obligation of decedent.— If the obligation of the decedent is solidary with another debtor, the claim shall be filed against the decedent as if he were the only debtor, without prejudice to the right of the estate to recover contribution from the other debtor. In a joint obligation of the decedent, the claim shall be confined to the portion belonging to him.

The appellant assails the order of dismissal, invoking its right of recourse against one, some or all of its solidary debtors under Article 1216 of the Civil Code —

ART. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected.

ISSUE: Whether in an action for collection of a sum of money based on contract against all the solidary debtors, the death of one defendant deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the case against the surviving defendants

HELD: No

It is now settled that the quoted Article 1216 grants the creditor the substantive right to seek satisfaction of his credit from one, some or all of his solidary debtors, as he deems fit or convenient for the protection of his interests; and if, after instituting a collection suit based on contract against some or all of them and, during its pendency, one of the defendants dies, the court retains jurisdiction to continue the proceedings and decide the case in respect of the surviving defendants.

Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Villarama et al.,:

It is evident from the foregoing that Section 6 of Rule 87 (now Rule 86) provides the procedure should the creditor desire to go against the deceased debtor, but there is certainly nothing in the said provision making compliance with such procedure a condition precedent before an ordinary action against the surviving solidary debtors, xxxx

Upon the other hand, the Civil Code expressly allows the creditor to proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. There is, therefore, nothing improper in the creditor's filing of an action against the surviving solidary debtors alone, instead of instituting a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased debtor wherein his claim could be filed.

In PNB vs. Asuncion, Justice Makasiar, reiterated the doctrine.

...........As correctly argued by petitioner, if Section 6, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court were applied literally, Art. 1216 of the New Civil Code would, in effect, be repealed since under the Rules of Court, petitioner has no choice but to proceed against the estate of Manuel Barredo only. Obviously, this provision diminishes the Bank's right under the New Civil Code to proceed against any one, some or all of the solidary debtors. Such a construction is not sanctioned by the principle, which is too well settled to require citation, that a substantive law cannot be amended by a procedural rule. Otherwise stated, Section 6, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot be made to prevail over Article 1216 of the New Civil Code, the former being merely procedural, while the latter, substantive.

Case is remanded to the corresponding RTC for proceedings. No costs.