G.R. No. 210931. August 03, 2015


The private respondent's first and second motions for extension totaling forty-five (45) days from May 25, 2015 within which to file a comment on the petition for review on certiorari are GRANTED. The said comment thereafter filed with compliance by the Public Attorney's Office, counsel for private respondent; the notice of appearance of Atty. Marlowe Doms R. Taj on of the Public Attorney's Office, Special and Appealed Cases Services, DOJ Agencies Building, NIA Road corner East Avenue, Quezon City, as counsel for private respondent; the letter dated May 22, 2015 of Atty. Ariel N. Ruiz, Officer-in-Charge DP A/PA III of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), Taguig City, in compliance with the Resolution dated January 26, 2015, requiring the Public Attorney's Office to identify the lawyer(s) in charge of the case, stating that Atty. Laguindab Marohombsar was the last lawyer that handled the case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 70 of Pasig City-Taguig City Station, that said lawyer has moved and transferred to the National Prosecution Service, and that the case was not among those transferred by him upon his move to the National Prosecution Service, and that the resolution ordering respondent's counsel to file a comment was not relayed by the recipient of the letter in the Public Attorney's Office, Pasig, to the Public Attorney's Office, Taguig District Office; and the manifestation by way of explanation of Atty.Marlowe Doms R. Tajon in compliance with the Show Cause Resolution dated January 26, 2015 for failure to file a comment on the petition for review on certiorari are all NOTED.

After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the October 3, 2013 Decision[1] and January 17, 2014 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 93697 for failure of petitioner Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company (PSIC) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 70 (RTC) validly rendered judgment against its issued Personal Bail Bond with PSIC Bond No. 47727 (subject bond).Under Section 21,[3] Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court (Rules), the failure of the bondsmen within 30 days to produce their principal and to satisfactorily explain the accused's non-appearance renders them liable for the amount of the bail. Notably, PSIC's failure to produce the person of the respondent Lalla Kabunto y Mantoc at the scheduled hearing on October 11, 2004, as well as its concomitant failure to justify her absence, were sufficient causes for the RTC to render judgment on the subject bond. Additionally, and as correctly pointed out by the CA, the grounds proffered by PSIC – i.e., the alleged forgery of the subject bond and its non-receipt of the October 11, 2004 Order – were issues that were only raised for the first time on appeal. It is well-settled that no question shall be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings a quo as it is repugnant to basic considerations of fairness and due process,[4] as in this case.


SERENO, C.J., on leave; JARDELEZA, J., designated acting member per S.O. No. 2122 dated July 31, 2015.

[1] Rollo, pp. 32-41. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.

[2] Id. at 43.

[3] Section 21, Rule 114 of the Rules reads:
SEC. 21. Forfeiture of bail. — When the presence of the accused is required by the court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time. If the accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show cause why no judgment should be rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen must:
(a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non- production; and

(b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.
[4] "It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.'" (S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation v. Parada, G.R. No. 183804, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 584, 594; citations omitted).

Popular Posts