ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10791 August 18, 1958 - ELENA SOTTO VDA. DE MARALAG, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    104 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-11945 August 18, 1958 - REYNALDO GOMEZ v. NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER COMPANY

    104 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-12662 August 18, 1958 - CHUA LAO, ETC., ET AL. v. CIPRIANO A. RAYMUNDO, ET AL.

    104 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-7047 August 21, 1958 - RAYMOND TOMASSI v. FERNANDO VILLA-ABRILLE

    104 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-11238 August 21, 1958 - ST. STEPHEN’S ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    104 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-11839 August 21, 1958 - MANUEL MASIGLAT v. CITY MAYOR OF PASAY CITY

    104 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-10303 August 22, 1958 - LUCIO JAVILLONAR v. LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION

    104 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-11063 August 22, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO BRIZ

    104 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. L-12376 August 22, 1958 - JOE’S RADIO & ELECTRICAL SUPPLY v. ALTO ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL.

    104 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. L-12631 August 22, 1958 - RAFAEL I. AMURAO v. INDALECIO CALANGI, ET AL.

    104 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-11004 August 25, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO GARDON

    104 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-12084 August 25, 1958 - PEDRO SAMSON, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO

    104 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-12544 August 20, 1958 - CHARLIE BROWN v. CONSTANCIO S. SUEZO

    104 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. L-12247 August 26, 1958 - BEATRIZ RAMOS VDA. BAGATUA, ET AL. v. PEDRO A. REVILLA, ET AL.

    104 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. L-7664 August 29, 1958 - AMADOR C. ONG v. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

    104 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-10222 August 29, 1958 - CIRILO DIZON, ET AL. v. ISABEL BANUES

    104 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-10445 August 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO ALFILER

    104 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-10525 August 29, 1958 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO GANCAYCO

    104 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-10617 August 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESCENCIO A. VERGEL

    104 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-10859 August 29, 1958 - FLAVIANO BAUTISTA v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

    104 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-10867 August 29, 1958 - MANOLO L. MADDELA v. JUAN P. AQUINO

    104 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-11862 August 29, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HERMOGENES MALLARI, ET AL.

    104 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. L-12172 August 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN F. FAJARDO

    104 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-9529 August 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA

    104 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-10122 August 30, 1958 - LEE E. WON v. WACK WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB

    104 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. L-10155 August 30, 1958 - WONG & LEE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    104 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-10665 August 30, 1958 - LORETO AGUIRRE, ET AL. v. MANUEL B. ATIENZA, ET AL.

    104 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. L-11336 August 30, 1958 - RODOLFO GANZON v. UNION C. KAYANAN

    104 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-11776 August 30, 1958 - RAMON GONZALES v. GO TIONG and LUZON SURETY CO.

    104 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. L-12000 August 30, 1958 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. v. COTO LABOR UNION, ET AL.

    104 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-12034 August 30, 1958 - PATRICIO PABORES v. COMMISSIONER OF WCC

    104 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-12190 August 30, 1958 - FAUSTO E. GAN v. ILDEFONSO YAP

    104 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-12324 August 30, 1958 - TAN LIM TE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL.

    104 Phil 522

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-10617   August 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESCENCIO A. VERGEL<br /><br />104 Phil 425

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-10617. August 29, 1958.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRESCENCIO VERGEL Y APOLINARIO, Accused. MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY COMPANY, INC., as bondsman, Defendant-Appellant.

    Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres for Appellee.

    Dimayuga, Villaluz & Dimayuga for Appellant.


    SYLLABUS


    1. BAIL BONDS; REDUCTION OF SURETY’S LIABILITY; DISCRETIONARY UPON COURT. — The reduction of the surety’s liability under the bond lies within the discretion of the Court. To exonerate the surety from its liability on the bond, after the terms thereof had been breached by its failure to produce the body of the defendant on the day set by the Court and to give satisfactory explanation for such failure, would encourage sureties to take lightly their undertakings.


    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    Cresencio Vergel y Apolinario waa charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced for, robbery by the Court of First Instance of Rizal (crim. case No. 2529-P). He appealed and the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. filed a bond in the sum of P8,000 for his provisional release. The judgment of conviction having been affirmed by the Court of Appeals and having become final, the trial court notified the defendant to appear before it and served notice upon the surety to produce in court the body of the defendant on 30 May 1955, at 8:00 o’clock in the morning, for execution of the judgment. On the day set by the Court, the surety filed a motion praying that as the defendant was working as laborer in Surigao, it be granted thirty days from that day within which to produce the body of the defendant. The Court granted the motion and transferred the execution of the judgment to 29 June 1955. On 25 June 1955 the surety filed a second motion for postponement of the execution of the judgment on the ground that the defendant who was either in Davao City or Zamboanga City could not yet be apprehended. The Court again granted the motion and reset the execution of the judgment on 29 July 1955 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning. On 27 July 1955 the surety filed a third motion for postponement on the ground that the defendant could not yet be apprehended. The Court granted the motion only until 6 August 1955 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning. As the defendant failed to appear on the last mentioned date, the Court ordered his arrest, declared the bond forfeited, directed the surety to produce his body within thirty days from notice and to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against it on the bond. On 10 September 1955 the surety prayed for a period of thirty days from that date within which to produce the body of the defendant. The Court denied the prayer. On 16 September 1955 the Court rendered judgment against the surety on its bond. The surety prayed for a period of sixty days from 12 October 1955 within which to produce the body of the defendant. The Court denied the motion. On 8 December 1955 the surety filed a motion praying that as the defendant had already been apprehended and surrendered to the police department of Pasay City on 6 December 1955, the order of forfeiture of the bond be reconsidered and set aside and that it be relieved of its liability on the bond. On 16 December 1955 a similar motion was filed by Miguel R. Cornejo as guarantor. On 16 January 1956 the Court entered an order reconsidering its previous judgment and relieving the surety of 50% of its liability.

    The surety has appealed contending that it should be relieved completely of liability on its undertaking since the defendant had already been surrendered to the police authorities.

    The record shows that the Court was very lenient to the surety by granting thrice its motions for extension of time within which to produce the body of the defendant and for postponement of execution of the judgment. And when the Court finally declared the bond forfeited and ordered the surety to produce the body of the defendant within thirty days from notice and to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against it on the bond, the surety failed to comply with the order of the Court and to give a satisfactory explanation for its failure to produce the body of the defendant within the time granted by the Court. For that reason it rendered judgment against it on the full amount of the bond. However, when the defendant was finally apprehended and surrendered to the police authorities after more than six months from the first time (30 May 1955) that the judgment was set for execution, the Court reduced its liability to 50% of the amount of the bond. Such reduction lies within the discretion of the Court. 1 To exonerate the surety from its liability on the bond, after the terms thereof had been breached by its failure to produce the body of the defendant on the day set by the Court and to give satisfactory explanation for such failure, would encourage sureties to take lightly their undertakings. 2

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. People v. Alamada, 89 Phil., 1.

    2. Republic v. Court of Appeals, 102 Phil., 953; 54 Off. Gaz. (27) 6734.

    G.R. No. L-10617   August 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESCENCIO A. VERGEL<br /><br />104 Phil 425


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED