G.R. No. L-21507 June 7, 1971
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NATIVIDAD FRANKLIN, accused, ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., bondsman-appellant.

FACTS

Natividad Franklin was charged with estafa before the Justice of the Peace Court of Angeles, Pampanga. For her provisional liberty, the Asian Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. posted a P2,000.00 bail bond. After preliminary investigation, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The accused failed to appear for her scheduled arraignment on two occasions, July 14 and July 28, 1962. Consequently, the court ordered her arrest and required the surety to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited.
The court granted the surety a 30-day period to produce the accused, with a warning of forfeiture upon failure. The surety failed and the bond was forfeited. The surety company later moved for a reduction of the forfeited amount, arguing that its failure to produce the accused was due to the Philippine Government’s negligence in issuing her a passport, allowing her to leave for the United States on February 27, 1962. The trial court denied the motion and subsequent reconsideration, stating it would consider reduction only upon production of the accused, a condition the surety never fulfilled.

ISSUE

Whether the surety company should be released from liability under the bail bond because the government’s issuance of a passport to the accused constituted a supervening event that prevented the surety from fulfilling its obligation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the forfeiture and denied the surety’s appeal. The legal logic is clear: the relation between a surety on a bail bond and the State is not the debtor-creditor relationship governed by Article 1266 of the Civil Code on fortuitous events, which the surety invoked. Instead, the nature of a bail bond creates a unique obligation. Citing precedents like U.S. vs. Bonoan and Uy Tuising, the Court held that by becoming a surety, the company assumed the role of the accused’s legal custodian or jailer. This role carries the absolute and inevitable obligation to keep the accused under surveillance and to produce her upon the court’s order.
The Court reasoned that the surety’s duty includes taking all necessary steps to prevent the accused from leaving the jurisdiction. The issuance of a passport was not a valid excuse for non-performance. It was the surety’s fault for not seasonably informing government agencies, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs, about the pending criminal charge and its responsibility for the accused. Had it done so, the passport likely would not have been issued. Therefore, the risk of the accused fleeing was borne entirely by the surety, and the government’s administrative act did not relieve it of its contractual and judicial obligation to the court. The forfeiture of the bond was proper.