G.R. No. 21164 - Batiquin vs. Batiquin

On October 15, 1956, Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. posted a bail bond in the amount of P2,000 securing the provisional release of the accused in Criminal Case No. 4470 pending before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
The bond was posted subject to the condition that the company would be liable if the accused failed to appear before the court as required.

On November 27, 1956, the scheduled hearing date for the case, the accused did not appear despite the bondsman having given timely notice to him.
Consequently, the court ordered the confiscation of the bond and granted the bondsman a period of thirty days to produce the accused and to show cause why judgment should not be rendered on the bond.

On December 7, 1956, the bondsman filed a motion seeking to lift the order of confiscation.
The bondsman explained that the accused failed to appear because his mother was very ill and had been admitted to San Lazaro Hospital, justifying his failure to secure the accused's timely appearance.

Meanwhile, at the motion of special counsel Ferrer, the court ordered the dismissal of the criminal case against the accused.
Notwithstanding the dismissal, on December 13, 1956, the trial court denied the motion to lift the confiscation order, though it reduced the bondsman’s liability to 20% of the original bond.
After a motion for reconsideration was also denied, the bondsman appealed the decision.

In its decision, the trial court remarked that the bondsman did not manifest any substantial effort to locate or produce the accused on the trial date, relying only on the explanation concerning the accused's mother's illness.
The court emphasized that mere notice of the accused’s whereabouts was insufficient and held that under Section 17, Rule 110, a bondsman is duty-bound to physically produce the accused when his appearance is required by the court.

Whether the bondsman’s explanation—that the accused did not appear due to his mother's illness and consequent hospitalization—is adequate to justify the failure to produce the accused on the hearing date.
Whether mere notification of the accused’s location fulfils the bondsman’s obligation under Section 17, Rule 110.

Whether the subsequent production of the accused within the thirty-day period justifies the trial court’s decision to reduce the bondsman’s liability to 20% of the original bond amount.
Whether such a reduction effectively mitigates the bondsman’s initial negligence in failing to ensure the accused’s appearance.

Whether the standard required of a bondsman—to act as an active custodian of the accused—was clearly established and whether the bondsman met that standard.
Whether the bondsman’s actions, having fallen short of the court’s expectations, warrant the imposition of liability for negligence.