Far Eastern Surety v. People
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a personal bail bond, serial no. JCR (2) 1807, posted for the provisional release of Celo Tuazon in Criminal Case No. 12408 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Tarlac City. The bond was purportedly signed by Paul J. Malvar and Teodorico S. Evangelista as authorized signatories for Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. (petitioner), and was approved by the RTC on January 23, 2004. 2. Procedural History: Following the accused's failure to appear, the RTC ordered the petitioner to produce the accused or explain why the bond should not be forfeited. The petitioner, alleging the bail bond was fake and falsified, filed a motion to cancel it, claiming forgery of Teodorico's signature and that Paul was not an authorized signatory. The RTC denied this motion, reasoning that the petitioner had indirectly acknowledged the bond's validity by filing a motion for extension of time. Subsequently, the RTC issued a Judgment of Forfeiture for P200,000.00 against the petitioner, which was followed by orders directing the issuance of a writ of execution. The petitioner's subsequent motions to hold in abeyance or quash the writ were also denied. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's orders and judgment. The petitioner argues that the RTC erred in ruling that it indirectly acknowledged the bond's validity, in holding it liable under a falsified bond, and in failing to verify the signatures' authenticity and authorized signatories as mandated by A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC. The petitioner contends that the signatures were forged and the signatories unauthorized, thus absolving it of liability.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in ruling that the alleged falsified bond’s validity can be indirectly acknowledged; and whether the RTC's ruling definitively passed upon the falsity or forgery of the signatures. Whether the RTC erred in holding the petitioner liable under the alleged falsified bond; and on the proper remedy for alleged irregularities. Whether the RTC erred in failing to observe and apply A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC. On the propriety of the Rule 45 Petition; Whether the RTC erred in ruling that the alleged falsified bond is binding upon the petitioner; and on the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the petitioner used the wrong mode of appeal by filing a Rule 45 petition when the issues involved questions of fact, not pure questions of law. The proper recourse for the issues raised would have been an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 or a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, which should have been filed with the Court of Appeals first, in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Rule 45 Petition and the nature of the disputed issues: The Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is exclusively for questions of law. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to the law on a given set of facts, while a question of fact arises when the doubt pertains to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. The test is whether the appellate court can resolve the issue without examining the evidence. In this case, the petitioner's core arguments revolved around the alleged falsity and forgery of signatures on the bail bond, and the authority of the signatories. These are factual issues that require an examination of the probative value of evidence. The RTC's ruling did not definitively pass upon the falsity or forgery of the signatures. It merely stated that the motion for extension indirectly acknowledged the bond's validity. To resolve the petitioner's claims, findings on whether Teodorico's signature was indeed forged, the validity of the bond, and the effects of an unauthorized signature would be necessary. These are factual determinations that cannot be made in a Rule 45 petition, which is confined to errors of law. On the nature of liability and the proper remedy: To resolve the petitioner's claims, findings on whether Teodorico's signature was indeed forged, the validity of the bond, and the effects of an unauthorized signature would be necessary. These are factual determinations that cannot be made in a Rule 45 petition, which is confined to errors of law. The Court clarified that even if the RTC's procedure in rendering a decision based on implications was irregular, a Rule 45 petition was not the correct remedy to question such an irregularity. If the petitioner's claims of forgery, unauthorized signatures, or the RTC's failure to observe A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC were to be pursued, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 would have been the appropriate recourse to question the RTC's ruling on the motion to cancel the bond. On the application of A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC: The petitioner's argument that the RTC failed to observe A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC was also deemed a factual issue. The Court noted that the bail bond was submitted and allegedly approved before the issuance of A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC. Without establishing the factual circumstances surrounding the RTC's approval of the bond, the Court could not rule on whether the RTC erred in its application or observance of the said circular. Equitable considerations, if any, could not be applied due to the lack of sufficient factual and evidentiary basis. On the propriety of the Rule 45 Petition, the binding nature of the bond, and the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts: The Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is exclusively for questions of law. The presumption of regularity of a notarized document and the rule that forgery must be proven by clear and convincing evidence further highlight the factual nature of the dispute. The Court stressed that filing the case directly with the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals, violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. This doctrine mandates that direct resort to the Supreme Court is generally not allowed unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in lower tribunals. For cases involving mixed questions of fact and law, the appeal should first be brought to the Court of Appeals.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is proper only when pure questions of law are raised. If the issues involve disputed facts, such as the authenticity and validity of signatures on a bail bond, or require an examination of evidence, the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 or a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, and the case must first be elevated to the Court of Appeals.