GR 45132; (July, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45132; July 14, 1936
LUZON SURETY CO., INC., petitioner, vs. MARCELIANO MONTEMAYOR, Judge of First Instance of Manila, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Luzon Surety Co., Inc. filed a petition for certiorari to set aside an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila directing the execution of one-fifth of the bond it posted for the provisional release of the accused, Anastacia Barabasa, in a criminal case. The accused failed to appear for arraignment on December 19, 1935, prompting the court to order her arrest and the confiscation of the bond, while granting the surety 30 days to explain. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, claiming it surrendered the accused the next day, but the motion was denied. The trial court later convicted the accused, who appealed. The court subsequently ordered the forfeiture of one-fifth of the bond amount. The petitioner filed multiple motions for reconsideration, all denied, and then resorted to certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing the lower court abused its discretion in ordering partial confiscation and should have limited liability to actual expenses incurred by the government.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the partial forfeiture of the bail bond, and whether certiorari is the proper remedy.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that under Section 76 of General Orders No. 58, the forfeiture of a bail bond is mandatory upon the accused’s failure to appear without sufficient cause. For exoneration, the bondsman must both produce the accused and satisfactorily explain the failure to appear. Here, the accused’s explanation—attending her sister’s funeral and its third-night celebration—was insufficient, especially since the surety had been notified of the arraignment date days earlier. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering partial forfeiture, as the extent of forfeiture rests within its sound discretion based on the circumstances. Moreover, certiorari is not the proper remedy because the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal from the forfeiture order, which it neglected to pursue. The loss of the right to appeal through negligence does not justify certiorari.
AI Generated by Armztrong.