G.R. No. L-11997 and L-12042; April 29, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SY BENG GUAT, defendant. MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., bondman-appellant.

FACTS

Sy Beng Guat was charged with estafa in two cases before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. For his provisional liberty, he posted a bail bond of P4,000.00 subscribed by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. On the date set for the continuation of the trial, the bondsman moved for a postponement, stating it was trying to locate the accused who was allegedly confined in jail in Quezon City for two other cases. The court denied the motion and ordered the forfeiture of the bond, giving the bondsman 30 days to produce the accused and show cause why judgment should not be rendered against it. The bondsman was granted two 30-day extensions and a final grace period until October 20, 1955. Having failed to produce the accused, the trial court rendered judgment against the bondsman on the bond on November 24, 1955. On November 25, 1955, the bondsman learned the accused was confined in the New Bilibid Prisons serving a sentence imposed by the Court of First Instance of Manila. On December 8, 1955, the bondsman filed a motion to lift the order of confiscation, praying to be relieved from liability. This motion was denied, prompting the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the bondsman (Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc.) should be relieved from its liability under the bail bond after failing to produce the accused within the periods granted by the court.

RULING

No. The order of the trial court denying the motion to lift the confiscation and rendering judgment against the bondsman is affirmed. Under Section 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, when an accused fails to appear as required, the bond is forfeited, and the bondsmen are given 30 days to: (1) produce the body of the principal or give reasons for its non-production; and (2) explain satisfactorily why the defendant did not appear when first required. Failure in either requisite subjects the bondsmen to liability. In this case, the bondsman failed to produce the accused despite several extensions and also failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the accused’s initial non-appearance on July 19, 1955. The subsequent discovery that the accused was in prison (committed on November 30, 1955) did not constitute a satisfactory explanation, as the bondsman had a duty to maintain continuous surveillance over the accused. The Court held that the mere production of the accused is insufficient; a satisfactory explanation for the initial failure to appear is mandatory, and the sufficiency of such explanation lies within the court’s discretion. The bondsman’s explanation was deemed unsatisfactory and did not entitle it to relief or mitigation of liability.