Citizens' Surety & Insurance Co. v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves a bail bond posted by Citizens' Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. for accused Rodolfo Torres in a criminal case. The accused failed to appear for his arraignment on October 13, 1975, leading the respondent Judge to issue an order for his arrest and the forfeiture of the bail bond, giving the surety thirty days to produce the accused or show cause why the bond should not be confiscated. 2. Procedural History: The accused, with the surety's conformity, filed a motion to set aside the arrest and forfeiture order, which was denied by the respondent Judge on November 5, 1975. The surety then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied on November 28, 1975, and judgment was entered against the bail bond. A writ of execution was issued. The surety filed a motion to quash this writ on December 29, 1975, arguing it was premature. Subsequently, on January 8, 1976, the surety filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. The respondent Judge denied the motion to quash and disallowed the appeal on February 9, 1976, finding both the motion and the appeal to be untimely. 3. The Petition: This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the February 9, 1976 order. The petitioner argues that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion and exceeded his jurisdiction by denying the motion to quash and disallowing the appeal. The petitioner contends that the filing of the motion to quash suspended the period for appeal, making their appeal timely. They also argue that the thirty-day period for producing the accused was suspended by their earlier motion for reconsideration, which was filed within the original thirty-day period. The petition asserts that the appeal was filed within the reglementary period, and the order disallowing it was contrary to law.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of an urgent motion to set aside the order of arrest and confiscation of bail bond suspended the 30-day period given to the bondsman to produce the accused or show cause. Whether the filing of a motion to quash the writ of execution suspended the 15-day reglementary period to appeal the order of confiscation of the bail bond. Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash and disallowing the appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The restraining order issued by this Court is ordered lifted. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the suspension of the 30-day period to produce the accused: The Court held that the "Urgent Motion to Set Aside Order of Arrest and Confiscation of Bail bond of Accused" filed by the accused, with the conformity of the petitioner, did not suspend the 30-day period granted to the bondsman. The Court reasoned that the contents of the motion, which explained the accused's failure to appear, were essentially an explanation for non-appearance. However, these explanations were deemed unsatisfactory as they did not sufficiently explain the neglect of the accused, nor was the accused produced before the court. The Court emphasized that Section 15, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court requires the bondsman to either produce the body of the principal or give a satisfactory reason for non-production, and also satisfactorily explain why the accused did not appear when first required. The Court found that the bondsman failed to meet these requirements. On the suspension of the 15-day period to appeal: The Court ruled that the filing of a motion to quash the writ of execution did not suspend the 15-day reglementary period to appeal the order of confiscation of the bail bond. The Court clarified that a writ of execution is a separate and distinct process from the order of judgment of confiscation. It is from the order or judgment of confiscation that an appeal should be made, not from the writ of execution. Therefore, any incident relative to the writ of execution cannot affect the period to appeal the judgment of confiscation. The Court noted that the petitioner received the order of confiscation on December 16, 1975, and the last day to appeal was January 2, 1976, considering holidays. The appeal was filed on January 8, 1976, making it six days late. On grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction: The Court found that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion nor act in excess of jurisdiction. The Judge correctly applied Section 15, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the production of the accused or a satisfactory explanation for non-production within the given period. The Court reiterated that the bondsman failed to comply with these requisites. Furthermore, the Judge correctly disallowed the appeal as it was filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court concluded that the respondent Judge acted within his jurisdiction and in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A motion to quash a writ of execution does not suspend the reglementary period to appeal an order of confiscation of a bail bond, as the writ of execution is a separate and distinct process from the order of judgment of confiscation.