G.R. No. 170618 - Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. People

The case arises from a personal bail bond (serial no. JCR (2) 1807) executed for the provisional release of Celo Tuazon, the accused in Criminal Case No. 12408.
The bail bond was signed by Paul J. Malvar and Teodorico S. Evangelista, allegedly as the petitioner’s authorized signatories.
On January 23, 2004, the RTC approved the bail bond based on its submitted documentation.

Following the issuance of A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC by the Supreme Court on August 16, 2004—which required bonding companies to accredit their authorized agents—the petitioner applied for its certification and subsequently designated Samuel A. Baui as its authorized representative in Tarlac Province.
The designation was crucial as it placed the petitioner under obligation to confirm the authenticity of actions and signatures when transactions arose concerning the bail bond.

When the accused failed to appear in court, the RTC ordered the petitioner to produce the body of the accused and explain why a judgment of forfeiture should not be rendered against the bond.
Electing to obtain additional time, Samuel A. Baui filed a Motion for Extension of Time, seeking both the use of the petitioner’s resources and assistance from agents outside Tarlac City to help locate the accused.
Later, the petitioner checked its register and claimed that it neither authorized nor sanctioned the issuance of the bail bond. Based on this verification:

A Very Urgent Motion to Cancel the Fake/Falsified Bail Bond was filed.
The petitioner alleged that Teodorico’s signature was forged and that Paul was not a duly authorized signatory (his name was missing from the Corporate Secretary’s Certificate submitted to the RTC).
Attached evidence included copies of the Personal Bail Bond, the Corporate Secretary’s Certificate, and a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Medy S. Patricio.

The RTC denied the petitioner’s motion to cancel the bond on the ground that filing the extension motion was tantamount to indirectly acknowledging the bond’s validity.
After the denial, the RTC issued a Judgment of Forfeiture dated October 6, 2005, ordering forfeiture of ₱200,000.00 against the petitioner.
Additional orders were subsequently issued by the RTC (October 4, October 25, November 14, and November 22, 2005) including the issuance of a writ of execution, all of which were contested by the petitioner through various motions.

The petitioner contended that by filing a motion for extension of time, it did not, in fact, acknowledge the validity of the bail bond.
It further argued that:

Its liability should be disclaimed on the basis that the bail bond was not issued by an authorized representative.
The absence of Paul’s name in the Secretary’s Certificate corroborated the claim of non-authorization.
Teodorico’s alleged forged signature further undermined the validity of the bond.

Moreover, the petitioner claimed that the RTC failed to verify the authenticity of the signatures and the petitioner’s authorized signatories as mandated by A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC.

Whether the RTC erred by ruling that filing a motion for extension of time amounted to an indirect acknowledgment of the bail bond’s validity.

Does the act of requesting an extension necessarily confirm the authenticity of a document whose signature is alleged to be forged?
To what extent does a procedural act translate into substantive acceptance of the bond’s legitimacy?

Whether the petitioner should be held liable under the allegedly falsified bail bond.

Can the petitioner disclaim liability based on its claim that it did not authorize the issuance of the bond?
Does the omission of Paul’s name from the Secretary’s Certificate substantiate a claim of non-authorization?

Whether the RTC erred in not applying or observing A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC in verifying the authenticity of the signatures and the legitimacy of the petitioner’s agents.

Was the failure of the RTC to cross-check the petitioner’s accreditation a procedural violation?
Does the requirement of accreditation impact the validity of the bail bond’s execution?

Whether the alleged falsified bond can be binding upon the petitioner, given the disputed facts surrounding the signatures and authorization.

Is the bond’s status as a notarized public document sufficient to overcome allegations of forgery without clear, convincing evidence?