PEARL ISLAND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, LIM TAN TONG and MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., Defendants-Appellants

PEARL ISLAND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LIM TAN TONG and MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-10517 June 28, 1957
FACTS:
In June, 1951, plaintiff Pearl Island Commercial Corporation, engaged in the manufacture of floor wax under the name
of "Bee Wax", in the City of Manila, entered into a contract, with defendant Lim Tan Tong, wherein the latter, designated as
sole distributor of said article in the provinces of Samar, Leyte, Cebu, Bohol, and Negros Oriental and all the provinces in the
island of Mindanao, was going to buy the said floor wax for resale in the territory above-mentioned. The plaintiff undertook not
to appoint any other distributor within the said territory; to sell to defendant Tong at factory price in Manila, F. O. B. Manila;
that Tong could sell the article in his territory at any price he saw fit; that payment for any floor wax purchased shall be
delivered to plaintiff within sixty days from the date of shipment; that (this is important) Tong was to furnish surety bond to
cover all shipments of the floor wax; and that Lim Tan Tong may return to the plaintiff the floor wax that are damaged or
unmerchantable, at its expense; and that in case of loss due to fortuitous event or force majeure, the plaintiff was to shoulder
the loss, provided the goods were still in transit.
Defendant Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., with Tong as principal, filed the surety bond (Exhibit B), binding itself
unto the plaintiff in the sum of P5,000, by reason of the appointment of Tong as exclusive agent for plaintiff for the Visayas-
Mindanao provinces, the bond being conditioned on the faithful performance of Tong’s duties, in accordance with the
agreement. It would appear that for its security, the Surety Company had Ko Su Kuan and Marciano Du execute in its favor an
indemnity agreement that they would indemnify said surety company in whatever amount it may pay to the plaintiff by reason
of the bond filed by it.
On June 18, 1951, plaintiff shipped 299 cases of Bee Wax, valued at P7,107, to Tong, duly received by the latter. Tong
failed to remit the value within sixty days, and despite the demand made by plaintiff on him to send that amount, he sent only
P770, leaving a balance of P6,337, which he admits to be still with him, but which he refuses to remit to the plaintiff, claiming
that the latter owed him a larger amount. To enforce payment of the balance of P6,337, plaintiff filed this present action not
only against Tong, but also against the Surety Company, to recover from the latter the amount of its bond of P5,000.
ISSUE:
WON the Contract between the oearl island Commercial Corporation and Lim Tan Tong was one of agency so that breach
thereof would come within the terms of the surety bond
RULING:
It is appellant's contention that it cannot be held liable on its bond for the reason that the latter was filed on the theory that the
contract between the plaintiff and Tong was one of agency as a result of which, said surety Company guaranteed the faithful
performance of tong as agent, but that it turned out that said contract was one of purchase and sale, shown by the very title of
said contract, namely, "Contract of Purchase and Sale", and appellant never undertook to guaranty the faithful performance of
Tong as a purchaser. However, a careful examination of the said contract shows that appellant is only partly right, for the
reason that the terms of the said contract, while providing for sale of Bee Wax from the plaintiff to Tong and purchase of the
same by Tong from the plaintiff, also designates Tong as the sole distributor of the article within a certain territory. Besides,
paragraph 4 of the contract entitled "Security", provides that tong was to furnish surety bond to cover all shipments made by
the plaintiff to him.
Under the circumstances, we are afraid that the Surety Company is not now in a position to deny its liability for the
shipment of the 299 cases of Bee Wax duly received by Tong and his failure to pay its value of P7,107, minus P770 or a balance
of P6,337, of course, up to the limit of P5,000, the amount of the bond.

PEARL ISLAND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, LIM TAN TONG and MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., Defendants-Appellants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEARL ISLAND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, LIM TAN TONG and MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., Defendants-Appellants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEARL ISLAND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, LIM TAN TONG and MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., Defendants-Appellants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEARL ISLAND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee,

You might also like