Title
People vs. Industrial Insurance Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 222955
Decision Date
Oct 16, 2019
IICI's revoked agent issued an unauthorized bail bond; forfeiture upheld due to IICI's silence and failure to notify court of irregularities, estopping its challenge.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205810)

Background of the Case

IICI, a non-life insurance company, entered into a General Agency Agreement (GAA) with FGE Insurance Management on April 22, 2005. Under this agreement, Enriquez was designated as the general agent authorized to solicit non-life insurance, including bonds. Subsequently, he was appointed as the Operations Manager for Judicial Bonds, with authority to issue bonds up to a maximum of ₱100,000. In a criminal case against Rosita Enriquez, accused of illegal possession of drugs, the bail bond amounting to ₱200,000 was posted but later forfeited when the accused failed to appear in court.

Events Leading to the Forfeiture

Following the accused's non-appearance, Judge Fonacier issued an Order on May 31, 2010, declaring the bail bond forfeited. Despite failing to produce the accused in court and notifying the relevant authorities of Enriquez's revoked authority, IICI filed a motion to lift the forfeiture order and to have the bond declared void due to several alleged irregularities.

RTC's Ruling

Judge Fonacier denied IICI's motion on January 24, 2011, arguing that proper procedural requirements were not met, including the absence of the necessary circumstances to cancel the bond as stipulated in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Judge Fonacier highlighted that the Clerk of Court's actions concerning the bond issued by Enriquez would be presumed regular unless established otherwise.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

Upon IICI's ensuing petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals found that Judge Fonacier had committed grave abuse of discretion, identifying multiple defects in the bail bond including the unauthorized increase in the bail amount and procedural deficiencies in bond execution. The CA thus granted IICI's petition and ordered the reversal of the RTC's decision.

Supreme Court's Decision

In reviewing the CA's decision, the Supreme Court overturned its ruling, determining that Judge Fonacier had not exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion. The Court stressed that IICI had sufficient knowledge of the bond's validity and failed to act in a timely manner

...continue reading

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