Short answer. Partly. Article 2078 says a release the creditor grants to one of several guarantors, without the others' consent, benefits them all — but only to the extent of the released guarantor's share. The others are not fully discharged; their exposure simply drops by the portion the released co-guarantor would have borne.
What the law says
A release made by the creditor in favor of one of the guarantors, without the consent of the others, benefits all to the extent of the share of the guarantor to whom it has been granted.
Civil Code, Article 2078 — Release of One Guarantor. Read the full provision →
Several guarantors share the burden
When more than one guarantor secures the same debt, they ordinarily share the burden among themselves: if one pays the whole, he can claim contribution from the others for their proportionate parts, so that no single co-guarantor ultimately carries more than his share. This internal division sits behind Article 2078. The question it answers is what happens to that arrangement when the creditor lets one of the co-guarantors off — releases him from the guaranty — without asking the others. Does the released guarantor's exit dump his share onto the rest, leave them wholly untouched, or something in between? The article chooses the middle path, protecting the others but only so far.
The rule and its measured benefit
The rule is precise: A release made by the creditor in favor of one of the guarantors, without the consent of the others, benefits all to the extent of the share of the guarantor to whom it has been granted. So the release does help the remaining guarantors — but by a defined amount. Their collective liability is reduced by the share that belonged to the guarantor who was released. They are not themselves released, and the debt is not extinguished; the credit is limited to removing the freed guarantor's portion from the total the others can be made to answer for. The benefit is real, measured, and automatic — it does not require the others' agreement.
Why only to the extent of the share
The reason for capping the benefit at the released guarantor's share is fairness on both sides. If the release wholly discharged everyone, a creditor could never let one co-guarantor go without losing his whole security, which would be too harsh on the creditor. If the release helped the others not at all, they would be worse off for the creditor's unilateral act — left to cover a share they could previously have recovered by contribution from the released guarantor, who is now beyond their reach. Reducing the others' liability by exactly that share holds the balance: the creditor keeps his security less the part he chose to give up, and the others are not made to absorb what the released guarantor would have paid.
What this means in practice
For a remaining guarantor, this means the creditor's release of a co-guarantor is not a full escape but is worth insisting on as a partial credit. If the creditor later demands payment, you can require that the released guarantor's share be deducted from what is sought from the group, because the law grants that reduction without needing your consent. What matters is identifying the released guarantor's proportionate share, which depends on how many co-guarantors there were and how the burden was apportioned among them. That figure is the measure of the benefit, so establishing it is the practical step when a creditor has let one of your co-guarantors go.
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.
- Paulino M. Ejercito, et al. vs. Oriental Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 192099, July 8, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Autocorp Group, et al. vs. Intra Strata Assurance Corp, et al, G.R. No. 166662, June 27, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →