G.R. No. L-44694, December 29, 1976
Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc., appellant, vs. Republic of the Philippines, appellee.

FACTS

Appellant Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc. posted a P2,000.00 bail bond for accused Oscar Eclevia in a direct assault case. The accused failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on October 16, 1972. Consequently, the trial court ordered his arrest, confiscated the bond, and gave the surety thirty days to produce him and explain his non-appearance. Despite two extensions, the surety failed to produce the accused, leading to a judgment on February 15, 1973, ordering the forfeiture of the full bond amount. The accused was finally surrendered to the court on February 23, 1973.
Appellant filed a motion to reduce its liability to 10% of the bond, citing that the accused was surrendered one day after it received the forfeiture order, that only 31 days lapsed from the last extension deadline to the surrender, that the delay was in good faith, and that the criminal case had been dismissed. The trial court denied this motion, prompting the instant appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to reduce its liability on the forfeited bail bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The ruling emphasized that the reduction of liability on a forfeited bond is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. This discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of grave abuse or a failure to consider relevant circumstances.
The Court clarified that under Section 15, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur to justify exoneration or reduction: (1) the production of the accused within thirty days from notice, and (2) a satisfactory explanation for the accused’s initial failure to appear. Compliance with the first requisite alone is insufficient. The surety must also provide a compelling reason for the original non-appearance.
In this case, the accused was surrendered 125 days after the surety received the initial confiscation order, not within the required period. More critically, the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the accused’s initial absence. The proffered reasons—that the accused, a student, left home due to martial law rumors and that his father hesitated to surrender him—demonstrated the surety’s laxity and failure to exercise the required diligence in monitoring its principal. The fact that the accused was produced only after the forfeiture judgment suggested the surety could have acted sooner but chose not to. The subsequent dismissal of the criminal case did not absolve the surety of its liability arising from the breach of its contractual undertaking with the court. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied the motion for reduction.