G.R. No. 150994 ; June 30, 2005
RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. ANDRES R. AMANTE, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cabanatuan City, the HON. CITY PROSECUTOR, Cabanatuan City and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. filed a “Special Appearance And Motion to Set Aside Orders/Writs of Execution” in several criminal cases before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City. Reliance alleged that the bail bonds subject of the writs were false and spurious, having been issued by a certain Evelyn Tinio without its authority, and that it had already filed a criminal case against her. The RTC, presided by respondent Judge Andres R. Amante, Jr., denied the motion, ruling that the controversy involving the surety, its agents, and the Insurance Commission fell under the administrative and adjudicatory powers of the Insurance Commission.
Reliance filed a Notice of Appeal from this denial. The RTC, however, disallowed the appeal because Reliance failed to pay the corresponding appeal fee, citing provisions from the Rules of Court pertaining to civil actions. Reliance moved for reconsideration, arguing that no appeal fee is required in criminal cases under the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The RTC denied the motion, characterizing the incident as civil in nature. Reliance then filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The appellate court held that appeals from orders involving bail bonds are treated as appeals in civil cases under its Revised Internal Rules (RIRCA), thus requiring payment of docket fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition and upholding the RTC’s disallowance of Reliance’s appeal for non-payment of docket fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the proceedings involving the liability of a surety on a bail bond. While the main criminal case proceeds against the accused, a proceeding to enforce the bond against the surety is civil in character. An order denying a motion to set aside a writ of execution against a bail bond is a final order that finally disposes of the surety’s liability. As such, the proper remedy for the surety is to appeal the order. The Court clarified that while the Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require an appeal fee, the specific provisions of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA) govern. Section 3, Rule 5 of the RIRCA explicitly states that no docket fees are required in criminal cases, “except in petitions for review of criminal cases and appeals from confiscation or forfeiture of bail bond.” Section 7, Rule 5 further provides that such appeals “shall be treated as appeals in civil cases.” These internal rules, which have been published, have the force and effect of law and supplement the procedural rules. Therefore, Reliance’s failure to pay the mandatory docket fee for its appeal was a valid ground for the dismissal of its appeal by the RTC.