Short answer. No. Article 2079 says the mere failure of the creditor to demand payment after the debt has become due does not by itself constitute the kind of extension that releases a guarantor. Inaction is not an agreed extension. Only a binding grant of new time, made without your consent, extinguishes the guaranty — not the creditor's delay or leniency.
What the law says
The mere failure on the part of the creditor to demand payment after the debt has become due does not of itself constitute any extension of time referred to herein
Civil Code, Article 2079 — An Extension Given Without the Guarantor's Consent. Read the full provision →
Silence is not an extension
It is tempting to think that a creditor who lets a due debt sit uncollected for months has effectively given the debtor more time, and so released the guarantor. Article 2079 forecloses that argument: The mere failure on the part of the creditor to demand payment after the debt has become due does not of itself constitute any extension of time referred to herein. Doing nothing is not the same as granting an extension. The debt is due, it remains due, and the creditor's slowness in enforcing it neither changes the maturity nor discharges the person who guaranteed payment.
Extension versus forbearance
The article draws a clean line between two things that look alike from the outside. An extension is an agreement — the creditor binds himself not to demand payment until a later date, altering the term of the debt. Forbearance is the absence of action — the creditor simply has not yet collected, while remaining free to demand payment at any moment. Only the first, granted without the guarantor's consent, extinguishes the guaranty. The second leaves the obligation exactly where it was. What matters is whether the creditor gave up his right to demand payment now, not whether he has got around to exercising it.
Why the distinction is fair
The guarantor's release under this article rests on the creditor having changed the deal, not on the passage of time. When there is a binding extension, the guarantor loses the ability to act on the original maturity, which is the prejudice the law responds to. When the creditor merely delays, the guarantor keeps every option he always had — he could pay the due debt and pursue the debtor at any time, since nothing stops him. Freeing a guarantor simply because the creditor was patient would reward him for a debt that is still owed and still enforceable, which the law declines to do.
What to look for
If you are a guarantor hoping the creditor's inaction released you, that hope is misplaced unless you can point to an actual agreement postponing the debt. Look for the grant of new time — a fresh due date the creditor agreed to and you did not — rather than a mere history of the creditor not chasing payment. From the creditor's side, the lesson is the mirror image: leniency toward the debtor does not put the guaranty at risk, but formally agreeing to a new maturity without the guarantor's consent does, and will cost the security entirely.