Short answer. Generally yes. A surety, unlike a plain guarantor, binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor. Article 2047 calls that contract a suretyship, and Article 2059 says the excussion - the guarantor's right to make the creditor exhaust the debtor's property first - does not take place when he has bound himself solidarily. So the creditor may proceed against you directly.
What the law says
If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such case the contract is called a suretyship.
Civil Code, Article 2047 — Guaranty and Suretyship. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The excussion shall not take place: (1) If the guarantor has expressly renounced it; (2) If he has bound himself solidarily with the debtor
Civil Code, Article 2059 — When Excussion Does Not Apply. Read the full provision →
A surety is bound solidarily
The word you signed under matters. Article 2047 distinguishes two roles. A guarantor binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so — a secondary, backup promise. But if a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the rules on solidary obligations apply, and in such case the contract is called a suretyship. A surety is not merely a fallback. By binding himself solidarily, he stands on the same footing as the borrower for the debt, which is why a creditor's options against a surety are far broader than against an ordinary guarantor.
The benefit of excussion does not help you
An ordinary guarantor enjoys the benefit of excussion: the creditor must first go after the principal debtor's property before turning to the guarantor. That protection is exactly what suretyship removes. Article 2059 lists when the excussion shall not take place, and the second item is decisive here: If he has bound himself solidarily with the debtor. Because a surety is solidarily bound, the benefit of excussion is unavailable to him from the start. The creditor is not required to sue the company first, exhaust its assets, and come to you only if that fails. You can be pursued at once.
Other situations that also remove excussion
Even a plain guarantor can lose excussion. The same article withdraws it where the guarantor has expressly renounced it, in case of insolvency of the debtor, where the debtor has absconded or cannot be sued within the Philippines unless he has left a manager or representative, and where an execution on the debtor's property would plainly not satisfy the obligation. So the protection is fragile in practice. But for you the point is simpler: as a surety you never had excussion to begin with, so none of these fallback situations even need to be examined.
What this does not mean
Being suable directly does not mean you owe more than the debt. A surety answers for the principal obligation, not for a larger sum invented against him, and whatever the debtor genuinely owes fixes the ceiling of your liability. Paying the creditor also does not leave you empty-handed — a surety who pays generally steps into the creditor's shoes and may seek reimbursement from the borrower whose debt he covered. And this all assumes you truly signed as a solidary surety; if the document actually made you a mere guarantor, the benefit of excussion would be yours to invoke.
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.
- Playinn, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee And Assurance, Inc, G.R. No. 254764, November 29, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. vs. Western Guaranty Corp, G.R. No. 220613, November 11, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- The Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. vs. DMCI-Laing Corporation, Inc, G.R. No. 205007, September 16, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Games and Garments Developers, Inc. vs. Allied Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 181426, July 13, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2047 — Guaranty and Suretyship
- Civil Code, Article 2059 — When Excussion Does Not Apply