G.R. No. L-14250; November 28, 1964
MARIA LOURDES PRIANES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERMIN HENSON, defendant-appellee, FIRST NATIONAL SURETY AND ASSURANCE CO., INC., bondsman-appellant.

FACTS

On September 28, 1955, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 17876, declaring Maria Lourdes Prianes as the illegitimate child of Fermin Henson and ordering Henson to pay monthly support of P250.00 from June 19, 1952, until her majority, plus P2,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. Henson appealed. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for execution pending appeal, unless Henson filed a supersedeas bond of P10,000. Henson, with First National Surety & Assurance Co., Inc. as surety, filed the bond. The bond’s condition was that it would be void if the appellate court adjudged Henson had a valid ground not to pay the sum ordered, otherwise, it would remain in full force. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s decision, reducing the monthly support to P100.00 but affirming it in all other respects. A writ of execution was issued, specifying the surety’s liability was limited to P10,000. The surety filed a motion to fix its liability at P4,000, arguing that the reduction in monthly support should correspondingly reduce its liability, as the accrued support at the time the bond was filed would only be P4,000 (based on P100/month) instead of P10,000 (based on P250/month). The trial court denied the motion and the motion for reconsideration, prompting the surety’s appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the reduction of the monthly support award by the appellate court correspondingly reduces the surety’s liability on the supersedeas bond from P10,000 to P4,000.

RULING

No. The order appealed from is affirmed. The surety’s liability remains at the full penal sum of P10,000. The trial court’s order granting execution pending appeal did not specify what the bond was to cover, and the amount was fixed within its discretion. The wording of the bond obligated the surety to pay the full P10,000 or nothing at all, with no provision for a proportionate reduction in case of modification. The rule cited by the appellant (Section 8, Rule 70, regarding forcible entry and detainer) is inapplicable to this case. The general rule under Section 3, Rule 39 applies, stating that a supersedeas bond is for the performance of the judgment appealed from if affirmed wholly or in part. Since the judgment for support (albeit at a reduced rate) was affirmed, and the total sum involved would not be less than the bond amount, it was proper to hold the surety liable for the entire bond. At the time the appellate judgment became final, the accrued support (at P100/month) plus attorney’s fees approximated P9,000.