FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204849. September 14, 2021.]
PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner,vs. JOEL SANTOS y MANALO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 204849 — Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company v. Joel Santos y Manalo
We affirm.
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised and resolved by this Court via a Rule 45 petition because the Court, not being a trier of facts, is not duty-bound to re-examine and calibrate the evidence on record. 1 The factual findings of the trial court are conclusive and binding on the Court, more so when such factual findings carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals, 2 as in this case. HTcADC
The petition raises question of fact pertaining to the lower courts' appreciation of the evidence on record which this Court cannot take cognizance of as it would entail a review of the facts of the case and recalibration of the evidence which is not a function of this Court. Specifically, it asks the Court to recalibrate the evidence and give more weight to petitioner Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company's (PSIC) evidence with the end in view of sustaining its plea to be absolved from liability for the alleged fake bail bond issued to respondent Joel Santos y Manalo by its agent, Julie Sañez (Sañez).
In any event, the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's denial of petitioner's manifestation with omnibus motion and ultimately holding petitioner liable on Bail Bond No. JCR (2)-23045 issued to respondent.
Records show that Sañez was an authorized agent of petitioner at the time she issued Bail Bond No. JCR (2)-23045 to respondent. Petitioner's witness, no less than its own vice president Rosario Lopez (Lopez) admitted that at the time the assailed bail bond was issued, Sañez was an authorized agent of the company who could process and facilitate the issuance of PSIC bail bonds. She further declared that any accused who wants to avail of PSIC bail bonds can rely on the authority given by the company to Sañez and has no reason to doubt the authenticity of bail bonds issued by her.
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same. 3
Here, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner failed to prove that the bail bond issued to respondent was indeed spurious. There was no concrete proof that Lopez' signature was forged. More, the bail bond issued to respondent was not included in the list of fake bail bonds in petitioner's pending criminal cases against Sañez for falsification of public documents.
Too, it is a matter of record that even before the show cause order was issued, the trial court had already been sending petitioner notices of hearing to produce respondent in Criminal Case No. 11895-D. This should have already alerted petitioner. It should have inquired why it had been receiving such notices, investigate the validity of the bail bond, and contest its authenticity and due execution if, indeed, it never issued the same. As it was, petitioner let four (4) years pass without contesting the bail bond despite receipt of notices from the trial court. Petitioner's failure to immediately respond to and challenge these notices militates against its ultimate claim for relief. 4
Notably, the bail bond is a duly notarized document. It is settled that a duly notarized document enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution, as well as the full faith and credence attached to a public instrument. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery that gave rise to a spurious contract. 5 This petitioner failed to do.
Petitioner acknowledged Sañez to be its agent who is duly authorized to process and facilitate the issuance of bail bonds. As the principal, petitioner must comply with all the obligations contracted by Sañez within the scope of her authority. 6 Without proof of forgery and that Sañez exceeded her authority in issuing Bail Bond No. JCR (2)-23045 to respondent, said bail bond remains valid and binding upon the parties.
The bondsmen's liability on the bail bond arises from a contract, the bond subscribed jointly by the accused and the surety or bondsmen. The obligations of the accused and the surety on the bond are different. In case of non-compliance with the obligations on the bail bond, the accused, on one hand, can be made to suffer a criminal penalty. The surety's liability, on the other hand, would merely be civil in character. 7 Since petitioner failed to comply with its undertaking under Bail Bond No. JCR (2)-23045, the trial court did not err in rendering judgment against the bond.
In fine, the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the denial of petitioner's Manifestation with Omnibus Motion to cancel PSIC Bail Bond No. JCR (2)-23045.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 25, 2012 and Resolution dated November 21, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114322 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Quines v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 248774, May 12, 2021.
2.Republic v. Spouses Darlucio, G.R. No. 227960, July 24, 2019.
3.Heirs of Malaque v. Heirs of Malaque, G.R. No. 208776, November 3, 2020.
4.Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Amante, Jr., 501 Phil. 86, 99 (2005).
5.Heirs of Malaque v. Heirs of Malaque, supra.
6. Article 1910, Civil Code of the Philippines.
Art. 1910. The principal must comply with all the obligations which the agent may have contracted within the scope of his authority.
As for any obligation wherein the agent has exceeded his power, the principal is not bound except when he ratifies it expressly or tacitly.
7.See Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Amante, Jr., supra, at 104.