GR L 10153; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10153; April 30, 1957
PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA and the SHERIFF OF NUEVA ECIJA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Plaridel Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. was the surety on a bail bond for the provisional release of accused Mariano V. Alfaro in a criminal case. The accused failed to appear for arraignment on August 31, 1955. On that date, the court ordered the bond forfeited and gave the surety thirty days from receipt to produce the accused and show cause why judgment should not be rendered against the bond. After the thirty-day period expired without compliance, the court, on November 14, 1955, rendered judgment against the bond, stating the August 31 order had become final and executory. The surety filed a motion for reconsideration on November 19, 1955, alleging it could not be held liable because, according to the municipal registry of deaths, the accused had died before the arraignment date, and it did not file an explanation earlier because the criminal case had been dismissed after the forfeiture order. The court denied the motion, holding the forfeiture order was final, though it reduced the forfeited amount from P15,000 to P1,000. A second motion for reconsideration was also denied. The surety did not appeal but instead filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the order denying reconsideration was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the orders of the lower court regarding the forfeiture of the bail bond.
RULING
The petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court held that the proper remedy available to the surety was an appeal from the judgment of forfeiture and the subsequent orders denying reconsideration, not a petition for certiorari. Citing Luzon Surety Co. vs. Montemayor, the Court ruled that certiorari will not lie where there is an adequate remedy by appeal, and this holds true even if the remedy of appeal was lost through negligence. Therefore, the petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction cannot be granted. The Court did not find it necessary to resolve the substantive issue regarding the alleged death of the accused, noting a discrepancy in the name (Mariano V. Alfaro vs. Mariano Alfaro) but deeming it immaterial to its disposition based on the procedural ground.