Short answer. Yes. The Civil Code's default is that a guaranty is gratuitous, but that default only applies unless the parties agree otherwise. A guarantor and the person being guaranteed are free to stipulate a fee or other compensation for the guaranty, and once they do, the arrangement stops being gratuitous.
What the law says
A guaranty is gratuitous, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
Civil Code, Article 2048 — Guaranty Gratuitous by Default. Read the full provision →
The default rule, and why it is only a default
Article 2048 sets a starting assumption: a guaranty is gratuitous, meaning the guarantor is presumed to be acting without pay unless the guaranty agreement says otherwise. That assumption exists because a guaranty is, at its core, an act of favor to the debtor, done for family, friendship, or business reasons rather than for profit. But the article does not stop there — it immediately qualifies itself with unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, which means the presumption yields the moment the parties actually agree to compensation.
A fee simply has to be stipulated
Because the gratuitous character is a default rather than a mandatory rule, nothing in Article 2048 stops a guarantor from charging for the risk taken on. What the law requires is that the fee arrangement actually be agreed — a stipulation, not an unstated expectation. If the guaranty contract or a separate agreement between the guarantor and the debtor spells out a fee, commission, or other compensation, that stipulation controls and the guaranty is no longer treated as gratuitous. Without such a stipulation, a guarantor cannot later insist on payment simply because none was mentioned.
It also matters who the fee is agreed with. The guaranty itself is the guarantor's undertaking to the creditor; a fee is almost always a separate bargain between the guarantor and the debtor who asked for the favour. Keeping the two apart is what prevents a later argument that the guarantor was really lending on his own account rather than answering for someone else's debt.
Where this comes up in practice
This distinction matters because a paid guaranty and a gratuitous one are not always treated identically for other purposes under the law — for instance, how strictly the guarantor's undertaking is construed can depend on whether it was a favor or a bargained-for service. A lender negotiating with a professional or corporate guarantor, or a debtor asking a relative to guarantee a loan, should be clear from the outset about whether any fee is expected, and put that understanding in writing rather than leaving it to be inferred later.
What charging a fee does not change
Being paid does not soften the guarantor's exposure. A compensated guarantor still answers for the debtor's default on the terms of the guaranty, and the fee neither enlarges nor caps the amount guaranteed — that is fixed by the guaranty and by the principal obligation it secures.
Nor does a fee dispute give the guarantor a way out. If the debtor never pays the promised commission, the guarantor's remedy is against the debtor; the creditor, who was no party to that arrangement, can still call on the guaranty. And a fee cannot be inferred from generosity after the fact: a guaranty is not presumed and must be express, so a guarantor who wants to be paid should have the amount, the timing and the trigger written down alongside the guaranty itself.