G.R. No. L-15214-15; October 26, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE C. CRUZ, accused. GLOBE ASSURANCE CO., INC., bondsman-appellant.

FACTS

Felipe C. Cruz was charged with estafa in two separate cases before the Justice of the Peace Court of Lucena, Quezon. To secure his provisional liberty, he posted a personal bail bond in the amount of P7,000.00, subscribed by Globe Assurance Co., Inc. as bondsman in both cases. The cases were forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Quezon where the accused pleaded not guilty. On June 25, 1955, a notice of hearing set for July 15, 1955, was sent to the bondsman via the sheriff of Manila, who made a return stating service was effected by leaving a copy with an authorized person. On the hearing date, the accused failed to appear. The court ordered the forfeiture of the bond and gave the bondsman 30 days to produce the accused and show cause why judgment should not be rendered against it for the bond amount. On July 21, 1955, the accused himself filed a motion for reconsideration with an affidavit of merit. The bondsman failed to comply with the court’s order to produce the accused. Consequently, the trial court rendered judgment against the bondsman for the bond amount and ordered the arrest of the accused unless a new bond was filed. On October 23, 1956, the accused filed a new bond through Alliance Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., which was approved, abating the arrest order. On June 17, 1957, Globe Assurance Co., Inc. filed a motion to require the accused to file a new bond so its own bond could be cancelled. The court denied this motion, noting the bond had already been forfeited due to the bondsman’s failure to produce the accused. The bondsman’s motions for reconsideration were also denied, with the court stating the forfeiture order was final, though it indicated relief might be considered if the accused was produced within sixty days. The bondsman appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly rendered judgment against the bondsman, Globe Assurance Co., Inc., for the amount of the bail bond after declaring it forfeited due to the accused’s failure to appear at the hearing and the bondsman’s subsequent failure to produce the accused or show cause within the 30-day period provided by the rules.

RULING

Yes, the trial court correctly rendered judgment against the bondsman, but the Supreme Court modified the amount payable. Under Section 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, when an accused fails to appear as required, the bond is declared forfeited, and the bondsman is given 30 days to produce the accused and show cause why judgment should not be rendered on the bond. The bondsman must both produce the accused or explain the non-production and provide a satisfactory reason for the accused’s initial non-appearance. Failure to comply warrants judgment on the bond. In this case, the bondsman was duly notified of the hearing. After the accused’s non-appearance and the forfeiture order, the bondsman failed to produce the accused or give a satisfactory explanation within the 30-day period. The trial court’s judgment was therefore proper. The bondsman’s claim of non-receipt of the forfeiture order was not credible, given the long lapse of time and the presumption of service. The accused’s own motion for reconsideration, while potentially satisfactory for lifting the arrest order, did not excuse the bondsman’s separate failure to comply with the court’s directive to produce the accused. However, considering the accused submitted to the court’s jurisdiction shortly after the forfeiture and presented reasons for his absence, following the policy in similar cases, the Supreme Court deemed it reasonable to reduce the liability. The order of the trial court was modified, reducing the amount adjudged against the bondsman-appellant to P2,000.00.