Case Digest (G.R. No. 130522)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Wong Pun et al., G.R. No. 24661. February 15, 1926, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johns, J., writing for the Court.
The appellant, Fidelity and Surety Co. of the Philippine Islands, was surety on two appeal bonds executed October 21, 1918, on behalf of several defendants (the Wong and Yee groups) who had been convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of Manila and admitted to bail pending appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila. Bond No. 1 was for P540 and Bond No. 2 for P640; each bond contained an added concluding paragraph stating that the surety did not undertake that the accused would later surrender themselves in execution of judgment if, at the time sentenced, the court should grant them an extension of time, nor did it consent to any such extension.
Proceedings in the Court of First Instance occurred in 1920: on January 24, 1920, the defendants named in Bond No. 2 were tried, convicted, and on January 26, 1920 personally appeared for judgment and were each sentenced in open court to pay a fine of P100. On March 11, 1920, the defendants named in Bond No. 1 pleaded guilty and were each sentenced to pay a fine of P100 and costs; the record shows the Bond No. 1 defendants obtained a ten-day extension to pay their fines. The record does not show an extension for Bond No. 2 defendants, but after sentencing the defendants were released and were not reapprehended by the sheriff.
An order for arrest was issued May 15, 1923, but only one defendant (Yu Fong) was then in custody. On June 29, 1925 the surety was directed to produce the bodies of certain defendants and warned that failure to appear by July 10, 1925 would lead to forfeiture of the bonds. The surety appeared, contended it was no longer liable, and on July 1, 1925 filed a motion to cancel the bonds and be relieved of liability. On July 26, 1925 the court denied the motion, holding that the additional clause in each bond was a substantial alteration of the bail bond prescribed by law, thus null and void, and adjudged the bonds in full force and effect, rendering judgment on them.
From that decision the surety company appealed to the Supreme Court, a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the added last paragraph in the appellant's bail bonds a valid and enforceable provision, or is it a substantial alteration of the prescribed bond form rendering the bonds void?
- Did the prolonged delay and apparent negligence of officials in enforcing the sentences estop the Government from enforcing the bonds and thereby release the surety from liability?
- Does the court's earlier acceptance and approval of the bonds in their existing form bar the Government from later ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)