Title
Mayuga vs. Abeto
Case
G.R. No. 17573
Decision Date
Aug 25, 1921
Sureties challenged execution of bond forfeiture due to lack of personal notice and improper procedural requirements; SC ruled execution irregular, granting relief.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 17573)

Procedural Background

The proceedings began when Jose Byron Santos was accused and subsequently convicted of practicing medicine without a license. In accordance with Section 67 of General Orders No. 58, Mayuga and San Agustin posted an appearance bond for Santos, ensuring that he would appear before the court. A scheduled hearing on July 8, 1920, did not see the attendance of either Santos or his sureties, leading to forfeiture of the bond following a motion by the fiscal on October 16, 1920.

Order of Bond Forfeiture

Following the bond forfeiture, the judge mandated that the sureties provide a justification for the absence of the principal, Santos, within thirty days. In response, the sureties filed an affidavit claiming that Santos was ill on the hearing date. However, the presiding judge, Judge A. Horrilleno, deemed the affidavit insufficient and required the bondsmen to appear in court personally.

Notice and Personal Appearance Requirement

The requirement for a personal appearance was problematic as the sureties were residents of Parañaque, Rizal, and could face significant hardship traveling to Zamboanga. Moreover, although a copy of the judge's order was served on Vicente Bautista, the attorney for Santos, the court did not provide personal notice to the sureties themselves.

Judge’s Ruling and Subsequent Actions

On January 10, 1921, after the sureties failed to appear, Judge Quirico Abeto ordered the issuance of execution against them. The petitioners subsequently contested this decision, noting that Santos reappeared in court on January 26, 1921, pled guilty, and paid the imposed fine.

Legal Analysis of Execution Issuance

The court determined that the execution against the bondsmen was issued irregularly and exceeded the court's authority. The earlier order issued by Judge Horrilleno, which demanded personal attendance of the bondsmen, did not fulfill the requisite legal standards because proper notic

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.