G.R. No. L-20077; September 30, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO PACOMIO, ET AL., accused, ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., respondent-appellant.

FACTS

In Criminal Case No. 4100 before the Court of First Instance of Zambales, accused Romeo Pacomio and Justiniano Pacomio, charged with illegal possession of dynamite, were released on bail bonds of P1,200 each posted by appellant Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. The accused failed to appear at the hearing on February 26, 1959, despite notice to the surety. Consequently, the court issued an order requiring the surety to produce the accused within thirty days and to show cause why the bonds should not be forfeited. Notice of this order was served on the surety on March 7, 1959.
The surety did not comply with the order within the given period. On motion of the prosecution, the court issued an order on July 31, 1959, sentencing the surety to pay P2,400, the aggregate value of the bonds. Subsequently, on September 23, 1959, the surety surrendered the accused and moved to set aside the forfeiture order. On November 25, 1959, the lower court amended its order, reducing the liability from P2,400 to P1,800. The surety appealed this amended order.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in not setting aside the forfeiture of the bail bonds and in maintaining a reduced judgment against the surety after the accused were eventually surrendered.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order. The legal logic centers on the surety’s contractual and judicial obligations under the bail bond. A bail bond is a contract where the surety guarantees the accused’s appearance in court when required. The surety becomes an officer of the court, and its liability becomes absolute upon the accused’s failure to appear, unless the non-appearance is justified.
The Court found the surety grossly remiss in its duties. First, the accused’s alleged excuse for non-appearance—that they were fishing at sea—was contained in an unverified motion not part of the record on appeal and thus carried no evidentiary weight. Second, and decisively, the surety failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the accused’s appearance. It did not notify the accused of the hearing beforehand, did not send a representative to court on the hearing date to explain their absence, and, most critically, took no action for over six months despite receiving the court’s March 7 order to produce the accused within thirty days. This prolonged inaction constituted a clear breach of its undertaking.
The eventual surrender of the accused in September 1959 did not extinguish the liability that had already accrued due to the prior default. The lower court acted with leniency and discretion in merely reducing the forfeiture instead of enforcing the full amount. Therefore, the appeal was devoid of merit, and the order holding the surety liable for P1,800 was proper.