GR 170618; (November, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170618 ; November 20, 2013
FAR EASTERN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. INC., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from a personal bail bond filed for the provisional release of accused Celo Tuazon in Criminal Case No. 12408 before the RTC of Tarlac City. The bond, bearing serial no. JCR (2) 1807, carried the signatures of Paul J. Malvar and Teodorico S. Evangelista as purported authorized signatories of petitioner Far Eastern Surety and was approved by the court. When the accused later failed to appear, the RTC ordered the petitioner to produce him. Samuel A. Baui, the petitioner’s court-accredited representative in Tarlac, filed a motion for extension of time to comply. Subsequently, the petitioner, claiming upon verification that it never issued such a bond, filed a Very Urgent Motion to Cancel Fake/Falsified Bail Bond. It alleged forgery of Teodorico’s signature and that Paul was not an authorized signatory per its corporate records.
The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the petitioner had indirectly acknowledged the bond’s validity by filing the motion for extension through its representative. It then issued a Judgment of Forfeiture against the petitioner for the bond amount. The petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and to quash the writ of execution were denied, prompting this direct appeal via a Rule 45 petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can properly entertain the petitioner’s direct appeal via a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding it was filed under the wrong mode of appeal. The Court emphasized that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is proper only for appeals involving pure questions of law. The issues raised by the petitioner—including the alleged forgery of signatures, the authority of the signatories, the RTC’s application of A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC, and the implied acknowledgment of the bond—are inherently factual or mixed questions of fact and law. These require examination and evaluation of evidence, such as the authenticity of signatures and corporate authorizations, which are beyond the scope of a Rule 45 review.
The proper remedy from the RTC’s orders denying the motion to cancel the bond and issuing the forfeiture was an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals on questions of fact or mixed questions, not a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Alternatively, if the error was deemed jurisdictional, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 could have been filed. Since the petitioner availed itself of the incorrect remedy, the Court could not proceed to rule on the substantive merits. The petition was thus dismissed on procedural grounds.