Plaridel Surety v. Montesa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Plaridel Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. was the surety on a provisional release bond for accused Mariano V. Alfaro in a criminal case. The accused failed to appear for arraignment on August 31, 1955, leading the court to order the bond forfeited and giving the surety 30 days to produce the accused or show cause why judgment should not be rendered against the bond. Procedural History: After the 30-day period expired without compliance, the court rendered judgment against the bond on November 14, 1955. The surety petitioned for reconsideration, alleging the accused had died before the arraignment date and that the criminal case was subsequently dismissed. The court denied this petition, stating the forfeiture order had become final, but reduced the forfeited amount from P15,000 to P1,000. A second motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Instead of appealing the denial of reconsideration, the surety filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, alleging the order denying reconsideration was rendered in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the order of forfeiture and the subsequent orders denying reconsideration. Whether the death of the accused prior to the arraignment date excuses the surety from liability on the forfeited bond.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction is denied. The court found that the surety had an adequate remedy by appeal from the judgment of forfeiture and the orders denying reconsideration, and that certiorari will not lie when an appeal is available, even if the remedy of appeal was lost through negligence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that the surety had a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy by appeal from the judgment of forfeiture and the subsequent orders denying reconsideration. The petition for certiorari was filed to prevent the enforcement of these orders by seeking their annulment, which is not the office of a writ of certiorari. The Court reiterated the principle that certiorari will not lie where there is an adequate remedy by appeal, citing previous jurisprudence. This principle holds true even if the remedy of appeal has been lost due to the petitioner's negligence. Therefore, the petition for certiorari was dismissed. On the surety's liability despite the accused's alleged death: While the Court noted a discrepancy in the name of the deceased in the registry of deaths and the accused, it found this immaterial to the resolution of the case. The primary issue was the procedural remedy available to the surety. The Solicitor General contended that the death of the accused did not excuse the surety from complying with the order to show cause, and that once the order of forfeiture became final, the court could not set it aside except to mitigate liability. The Court's decision focused on the procedural bar to certiorari, rendering the substantive issue of whether the death excused liability moot in the context of the certiorari petition.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari will not lie to annul an order of forfeiture of a bail bond and subsequent orders denying reconsideration thereof, when the proper remedy available to the surety was to appeal from said orders.