G.R. No. L-17124 June 30, 1966
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. ISAGANI FAMILIAR Y CARLOS and BONIFACIO SORIANO Y PANGAN, accused. RURAL INSURANCE and SURETY CO., INC., bondsman and appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Rural Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., posted a bail bond for accused Bonifacio Soriano. On October 24, 1958, the trial court issued an order stating that despite notice, Soriano failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The court ordered his arrest and declared the bond confiscated, giving the bonding company 30 days to produce the accused and show cause why judgment on the bond should not be rendered. Within the 30-day period, the appellant submitted a petition to lift the confiscation, explaining it had located, arrested, and surrendered Soriano to the police. The court denied this petition. Upon the appellant’s motion for reconsideration, the court issued an order on January 15, 1959, which is the subject of this appeal. This order noted that the accused testified he was not to blame for his non-appearance, and the court had agreed to reconsider the confiscation on the condition that the surety company refund the premiums paid by the accused. However, the accused later reported the company did not comply with this promise. Consequently, the court rendered judgment on the bond but reduced the forfeiture from P6,000 to P1,000. The appellant appealed, contesting this partial confiscation.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in ordering the partial confiscation of the bail bond and in its related rulings concerning the conditions for lifting the forfeiture and the credence given to the accused’s explanation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. The Court found no merit in the appellant’s assigned errors. First, the appellant’s agreement to refund the premiums to the accused was a valid consideration for the court’s willingness to reconsider the confiscation, and the appellant could not refuse to comply. Second, the provision in the Rules of Court allowing for the cancellation of a bond upon surrender of the accused applies only before a default occurs and an order of confiscation is issued, not after, as in this case. Third, the trial court acted within its discretion in believing the accused’s explanation that he was not notified of the trial date, a belief reinforced by the surety’s agreement to refund the premiums. Fourth, while liberality towards bondsmen is recognized, it cannot extend to total exoneration when the obligation was breached, causing a delay in the trial. The reduction of the forfeiture to one-sixth of the bond amount was a proper exercise of discretion, and the cited cases (People vs. Calderon and People vs. Puyal) were distinguishable or supported such a reduction. The appealed order was affirmed.