THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO V. HERRERO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On the 25th day of January, 1910, the appellant and one Jose Robles Lahesa
executed to ttye Government of the Philippine Islands a joint and several bond
in the penal sum of P200, the conditions of which bond were that—

“Whereas the Director of Constabulary has on the 30th day of June, 1908,
issued to the above-bounded Jose Robles Lahesa a license to purchase and keep
the following firearms, viz: One revolver—Garland—Cal. 22, No. 4152, and 100
cartridges, and the above-bounded Jose Robles Lahesa has covenanted and agreed
and does hereby covenant and agree, that he will safely keep the said firearms,
or any of them, and will deliver the same to the Government of the Philippine
Islands on demand, and that he will not sell or dispose of these firearms
without permission of the Director of Constabulary.

“Now, therefore, if the above-bounded Jose Robles Lahesa shall and will in
all^respects duly and truly observe and perform all and singular the aforesaid
covenants, conditions, and agreements by the said Jose Robles Lahesa, to be
observed and performed, according to the true intent and meaning thereof, then
the above obligation shall be void and of no effect; otherwise to remain in full
force and virtue.”

It is averred in the complaint, and was admitted by appellant in open court,
that in consideration of the execution of the bond Robles was given a license to
keep a revolver; that he later left the Philippine Islands without informing the
authorities of his intention to change his residence; that his present
whereabouts are not known; that thereafter the Director of Constabulary in May,
1912, November, 1913, and January, 1914, made written demands upon Robles to
bring the revolver and his license “to the office of the Chief of Police of
Manila for due inspection,” which demands were delivered to the appellant, as
one of Robles’ bondsmen; that notwithstanding these demands, neither the license
nor the revolver has been taken to the office of the Chief of Police of
Manila.

Upon these facts the court below held that the conditions of the bond have
been broken, and gave judgment against defendant for the payment to the
Government of the Philippine Islands of the sum of P200. From this judgment
defendant has appealed, and contends that the failure of his principal to
produce the revolver and firearms license for inspection is not a breach of the
conditions of the bond for which he may be held liable.

The only question is whether the failure of Robles to take the revolver and
his license to the office of the Chief of Police for inspection constitutes a
breach of the condition that he would “deliver the same to the Government of the
Philippine Islands on demand * * *.”

Section 14 of The Firearms Act, in force when the bond in question was
executed, makes it the duty of any person holding a license to possess firearms
to exhibit them, whenever called upon to do so, to the Chief of Police of
Manila, or any of the other officials therein named, and provides that a
violation of the provisions of this section may, in the discretion of the
Governor-General, be punished by revocation of the license. Section 15
of the same Act requires the Chief of Police to make an annual verification of
all arms in the possession of residents of Manila to whom licenses have been
issued, and to indorse the fact of such verification, together with a note of
the date thereof, upon the license.

It is admitted that Robles has failed to produce his license for verification
as required by section 14 of The Firearms Act, and his license, immediately upon
that failure, became subject to revocation, in the discretion of the Governor-
General. Had the license been revoked and demand thereafter made upon Robles for
the delivery of the firearm for surrender thereof to the Government, failure to
make such delivery would no doubt have constituted a breach of the terms of the
bond here in suit, but it does not appear that the license was ever revoked or
that after revocation a demand was ever made upon Robles for the surrender of
the revolver. It is obvious that Robles has violated two of the conditions upon
which the license was issued, and that it might be revoked for either
of those reasons, but the liability of his bondsmen is to be measured by the
terms of the contract alone and does not include any obligation imposed upon
their principal by the general terms of The Firearms Act but which is not
embodied in the bond. With respect to Robles, his obligations arising from the
permission granted him to keep a revolver are to be measured by The Firearms Act
in general, and by the terms of his contract in particular, but with respect to
his sureties, their liabilities are to be measured solely by the terms of the
contract subscribed by them. The forfeiture of the license for failure to
produce it for inspection under section 14, or for failure to give notice of the
change of address under section 13, would not constitute a breach of the
obligation of the sureties. They are only liable in the event that Robles does
or fails to do one or more of the specific things required by the bond. It does
not appear that he has failed on demand to deliver his revolver to the
Government of the Philippine Islands. The demand that he produce it for
inspection is not a demand for its delivery.

The purpose of this action is to enforce the payment of a penalty.
Obligations imposing penalties and forfeitures must be strictly construed, for
it is well settled that sureties are only chargeable according to the strict
terms of the bond. The terms of their contract are those which measure the
extent of their liability. (5 Cyc, 758.) While it is quite probable, upon the
facts disclosed by the evidence, that had Robles’ license been revoked and
demand made upon him for the surrender of the revolver, it would not have been
produced, that does not alter the fact that so far it has only been made to
appear that he has failed to comply with the demand that his license and the
revolver be produced for verification and inspection. The
sureties have not agreed that for Robles’ failure to do either or both of these
things they would pay the penalty of P200 demanded of them.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed,
absolving the defendant from the complaint. So ordered,

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Street, JJ.,
concur.

Malcolm, J., dissents.