G.R. No. 228357 - C.P. Reyes Hospital vs. Geraldine M. Barbosa

Accused Felipe C. Cruz faced two separate counts of estafa before the Justice of the Peace Court of Lucena, Quezon.
The respective criminal cases were later forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Quezon where he was formally indicted and entered a plea of not guilty.

To secure his provisional liberty, the accused was allowed to post a personal bail bond in the amount of P7,000.00.
Globe Assurance Co., Inc. acted as the bondsman by subscribing to the bail bond on his behalf.

A notice of hearing was dispatched on June 25, 1955, with a copy sent to the bondsman through the Sheriff of the City of Manila, who left it with an authorized person.
On the scheduled hearing date, the accused failed to appear, prompting the court to declare the bond forfeited and to order that the bondsman had 30 days to produce the accused or show cause why judgment should not be rendered against the bond for the full amount.

On July 21, 1955, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration accompanied by an affidavit of merit in a bid to lift the order of arrest.
Despite this motion by the accused, the bondsman failed to comply with the 30-day requirement to produce the accused or provide a satisfactory explanation.
Consequently, the trial court rendered judgment against the bondsman for the full amount of the bail bond, while also ordering the arrest of the accused unless he provided a new bail bond.

The accused subsequently filed a new bail bond on October 23, 1956, through the Alliance Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. for the same amount (P7,000.00), which resulted in the abatement of the arrest order.
On June 17, 1957, Globe Assurance Co., Inc., the original bondsman, filed a motion requesting that the accused be required to secure a new bail bond to cancel the forfeited one.
The trial court denied this motion, holding that the forfeiture order was already final and executory.
The bondsman’s subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied, leading to the present appeal.

Whether the bondsman’s failure to produce the accused or provide a satisfactory explanation within the prescribed 30-day period legally justified the declaration of forfeiture of the bail bond.

Did the proper service of the notice of hearing, as evidenced by the Sheriff’s return, establish that the bondsman was duly informed?
Can the bondsman’s claim of non-receipt of the court orders be accepted after the lapse of a considerable period?

Whether the accused’s timely motion for reconsideration and subsequent filing of a new bond should influence the bondsman’s responsibility regarding the forfeited bail bond.

Does the accused’s later effort to explain his non-appearance mitigate or affect the bondsman’s non-compliance with the rule requiring production of the accused?
Is the bondsman entitled to cancel its forfeited bond by filing a motion after the order had already become final and executory?