UY SOO LIM, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CHOA TEK HEE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On the 31st day of March, 1913, the plaintiff commenced an action against the
defendant in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, After the issue
was joined and the trial had, the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario rendered a
judgment upon the 30th day of March, 1914. From that judgment both the plaintiff
and defendant appealed to this court.

The lower court ordered the execution of the judgment unless the defendant
should present a bond in the sum of P33,000. The bond was given. The appeal was
perfected. The record was received in the office of the clerk of the Supreme
Court on the 8th day of June, 1914. The said bond, which was given by the
defendant-appellant to perfect his appeal from the judgment of the lower court,
was signed by one Emiliano Carruncho.

On the 8th day of October, 1914, the said Emiliano Carruncho presented a
motion in this court, praying that the bond be canceled and that he be relieved
from responsibility upon the same. Said motion was heard on the 19th day of
October, 1914. The attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant, respectively,
appeared and opposed the granting of said motion. Emiliano Carruncho did not
appear at the hearing of said motion, personally or by attorney.

Under these facts we have the question presented whether or not a person who
has signed an appeal bond for the purpose of preventing the execution of a
judgment during the pendency of an appeal, can be relieved from liability upon
it by a motion. A bond is a contract. It is a contract defeasable upon
condition subsequent. For example, it is a conditional promise (contract) by A
to pay a sum of money, to do an act, or a forbearance, which promise may be
defeated by a performance by A of the condition. The promise imposes a penalty
for the nonperformance of the condition which is the real purpose of the
contract (bond). Liability attaches at once in case of a failure to comply with
the condition. A bond given for the purpose of perfecting an appeal and to
prevent the execution of a judgment of the lower court, is a contract and is
just as binding upon the parties, subject to the conditions named in it, as any
other contract. The parties thereto have no more right to be relieved from
liability upon such a contract ttian they have in any other contract, without
performing the conditions named. Relief from liability under a bond can only be
had in accordance with the methods and for the reasons provided for by law, by
which they may be relieved in ordinary contracts. They must pursue the same
methods by which they may be relieved from liability under other contracts. The
fact that an agreement existed (as is alleged in the present case, with the
person who was primarily obligated to perform the conditions of the bond) by
which the surety was to be relieved at a certain time or upon certain
conditions, which were not mentioned in the bond, is not sufficient to relieve
him from liability upon said bond, without the consent of the person for whose
benefit the bond was given.

For the reasons above stated, the motion is denied.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.

Moreland, J., concurs in the result.