Example: Kung nangutang si RCT and SITUATION:

RMG (as solidary debtors) from BBG Let’s go back to the previous example
in a total of P100k, pero gi split, so, where I acted as a surety. What if BBG
P50 each. will file a case against me, as a surety?

QUESTION:
If BBG will file a case against RCT, can
he claim P100k from the latter? Can he
do that without impleading RMG?
ANSWER:
Yes, because our obligation is solidary.
Hence, RMG is not an indispensable
party but only a necessary party. After
all, with or without RMG, the case will
proceed.
QUESTION:
What if the obligation is joint?
ANSWER:
The action can proceed without
impleading RMG but the amount to be
collected is only for P50k. RMG’s
participation is still necessary.
ANSWER:
The case will prosper because the
liability of a surety is solidary to that
of the principal obligor. Hence, your
principal obligor here is only a
necessary party.
SITUATION:
I acted as a guarantor, BBG filed a case
against me without impleading RCT
(the principal debtor). Will that
prosper?
ANSWER:
No. RCT should be impleaded because
he is an indispensable party.
CASE: PALMARES…. PLEASE INSERT
THE CASE

SITUATION:
BBG granted a loan to RCT for P50m. I
acted as surety. Can BBG file an action
against RCT without impleading me?

ANSWER:
Yes, a surety is only a necessary party.

QUESTION:
If I acted not as a surety but merely a
guarantor. Can BBG file against RCT
without impleading the guarantor?

ANSWER:
A guarantor is only a necessary party.
In other words, a surety or a
guarantor is only a necessary party
with respect to the action filed by the
creditor against the principal obligor.