G.R. No. 220647 - Aparicio vs. Manila Broadcasting Co.

On November 13, 1956, a complaint for robbery in band was filed before the Justice of the Peace Court of Japapad, Samar, against five persons.
The accused were initially granted provisional liberty pending further investigation.
Nineteen persons (bondsmen) put up a bail bond amounting to P40,000.00 on behalf of the accused.

Due to the accused repeatedly failing to appear on the dates set for the preliminary investigation, the Justice of the Peace interpreted such non-appearance as a waiver of the investigation proceedings.
Consequently, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Oras, Samar for prosecution.

After the formal charge was filed by the fiscal, the trial on the merits was set for August 22, 1958.
Out of the 19 bondsmen, only 8 received notice of the trial hearing, even though two of them had informed their counsel, Atty. Pablo G. Rebadulla, of the trial’s schedule.
Atty. Rebadulla mistakenly advised the bondsmen that their presence was only required for the preliminary investigation—not for the trial proper—and relied on their verbal waiver.

Upon learning that the scheduled hearing was for trial on the merits, Atty. Rebadulla immediately notified the clerk of court and requested a postponement to the first week of November 1958.
He also filed, via registered mail, a written motion for postponement, citing his recent engagement and insufficient time to study the case, further complicated by the trial venue being in Oras, Samar.
Despite his efforts, the motion for postponement was denied.

With the accused failing to appear at the trial, the court ordered the arrest of the accused and the confiscation of the bonds.
The bondsmen were given a 30-day period within which they were required to produce the accused and explain why their bonds should not be forfeited.

On October 6, 1958, Atty. Rebadulla filed an urgent motion to lift the order of confiscation, explaining that:

The bondsmen failed to produce the accused on the trial date due to the erroneous advice that their appearance was unnecessary, as the trial was mistaken for a preliminary investigation.
Their further failure to produce the accused within the 30-day period was because the accused had already been arrested under a previous court order.

The urgent motion was denied because it lacked affidavit support.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration, this time supported by the necessary affidavits, was similarly rejected, and the court rendered judgment ordering the bondsmen to pay the amounts specified in their bonds.
The judgment was pronounced immediately executory, prompting the bondsmen to file the present appeal.

Whether the lower court abused its discretion by ordering the bondsmen’s bonds to be forfeited based on their failure to produce the accused, despite significant notice irregularities affecting many bondsmen.
Whether the erroneous advice provided by counsel—which led the bondsmen to believe that their presence was not required for the trial—constituted a sufficient justification (or “substantial compliance”) under Section 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court to set aside the order of confiscation.