Short answer. Yes. When the borrower has absconded or cannot be sued in the Philippines, the guarantor's right to insist the creditor exhaust the borrower's property first falls away. Article 2059 lists this among the cases where excussion does not take place, so the creditor may proceed directly against you.
What the law says
(4) When he has absconded, or cannot be sued within the Philippines unless he has left a manager or representative;
Civil Code, Article 2059 — When Excussion Does Not Apply. Read the full provision →
The benefit you would normally have
As a guarantor you usually stand behind the borrower, not beside him. The benefit of excussion entitles you to require that the creditor first pursue and exhaust the principal debtor's own property, coming to you only for any deficiency. That sequencing is what keeps a guarantor secondary: you should not be dunned for a debt the borrower could himself have paid out of his assets. But the benefit rests on an assumption — that the borrower can actually be reached and made to pay. When that assumption fails, so does the benefit.
Absconding removes the sequencing
Article 2059 addresses exactly your situation. Among the cases where the excussion shall not take place is (4) When he has absconded, or cannot be sued within the Philippines unless he has left a manager or representative. If the borrower has fled or is beyond the reach of suit here, forcing the creditor to go after him first would be an exercise in futility. The law will not make the creditor chase a debtor who cannot be found or sued, so it lets the creditor turn to the guarantor without that empty preliminary step.
The representative exception
The article contains a saving clause worth noticing: the benefit is preserved if the absent borrower has left a manager or representative in the Philippines. In that case there is someone here through whom the borrower's property can still be pursued, so the reason for dispensing with excussion disappears and the ordinary order is restored. So whether you can still insist the creditor go after the borrower first depends on a concrete fact — did the departed borrower leave behind an agent or manager who can be sued in his stead? If he did, your shield may survive.
Limits and remaining rights
Being reachable directly is not the same as being liable for more than you guaranteed. You keep the defenses arising from the debt itself — that it is not yet due, is invalid, or has been settled — and your liability stays measured by the obligation you actually backed. A guarantor who ends up paying also generally retains the right to seek reimbursement from the borrower, though a borrower who has absconded may be hard to collect from in fact. The article decides the order of collection, not the size of your exposure.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Trade and Invesment Development Corporation of the Philippines also known as Philippine Export-Import Credit, G.R. No. 233850, July 1, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →