Short answer. Generally yes. Article 2057 lets the creditor demand a replacement guarantor if yours becomes insolvent or is convicted in first instance of a crime involving dishonesty. The new guarantor must have the qualifications the law requires. The one exception is where the creditor himself insisted on a specific named person as the guarantor.
What the law says
If the guarantor should be convicted in first instance of a crime involving dishonesty or should become insolvent, the creditor may demand another who has all the qualifications required in the preceding article
Civil Code, Article 2057 — Replacement of a Guarantor. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The case is excepted where the creditor has required and stipulated that a specified person should be the guarantor
Civil Code, Article 2057 — Replacement of a Guarantor. Read the full provision →
Insolvency or a dishonesty conviction lets the creditor ask again
A guarantor is accepted partly for who he is — someone able to answer for the debt if the borrower does not. Article 2057 protects the creditor when that assurance falls away: If the guarantor should be convicted in first instance of a crime involving dishonesty or should become insolvent, the creditor may demand another who has all the qualifications required in the preceding article. Two events trigger it — the guarantor's insolvency, or his conviction at first instance of a crime involving dishonesty. Either strikes at the reason he was acceptable in the first place, so the creditor is entitled to ask for a fresh guarantor rather than be left holding a hollow guaranty.
The replacement must actually qualify
The creditor cannot be fobbed off with a nominal substitute. The new guarantor must carry all the qualifications the law sets for a guarantor — broadly, the capacity to bind himself, enough means to answer for the obligation, and being within reach of the court that would enforce it. The point of the rule is to restore the security the creditor bargained for, not to go through the motions of naming someone. A proposed replacement who is himself without means or otherwise unqualified does not discharge the duty; the demand is for a guarantor as good as the one first given.
The exception: a guarantor the creditor chose
There is one situation where the creditor loses this right. Article 2057 excepts the case is excepted where the creditor has required and stipulated that a specified person should be the guarantor. If the creditor himself insisted on that particular individual, he took the risk of that person's later insolvency or misfortune, and cannot then turn to the debtor to cure it. The debtor did not choose the guarantor; the creditor did. Having pinned the security to a named person of his own selection, the creditor bears the consequence if that person's standing later collapses.
What this means for the debtor
If your guarantor has gone insolvent or been convicted of a dishonesty offence at first instance, expect the creditor to be within his rights to ask for a replacement, and be ready to propose one who genuinely qualifies. The alternative — leaving the obligation effectively unsecured — is what the article is designed to prevent. Before conceding the demand, check the exception: if it was the creditor who required this exact person as guarantor, the duty to replace does not fall on you, and that is worth establishing from the loan documents before you scramble for a new name.