MARIA LOURDES PRIANES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FERMIN HENSON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE; FIRST NATIONAL SURETY AND ASSURANCE CO., INC., BONDSMAN AND APPELLANT.

REGALA, J.:


The First National Surety & Assurance Co., Inc. appeals from the order of
the Court of First Instance of Manila denying its motion to fix liability on a
bond filed by it in Civil Case No. 17876 of the same court.

The record shows that on September 28, 1955, the Court of First Instance of
Manila rendered a decision finding that the minor Maria Lourdes Prianes, one of
the Pontiffs, is the illegitimate child of defendant Fermin Henson. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court hereby renders judgment
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the latter to
support the herein plaintiff Maria Lourdes Prianes in the mint of P250.00 a
month beginning June 19, 1952, through her guardian, Ines Prianes, until she
reaches the age of majority, to pay the sum of P2.000 as attorney’s fees and
the costs of this suit.”

The defendant having interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the
plaintiff filed a motion for writ of execution pending appeal. After hearing,
the trial court issued an order granting said motion “unless the defeated part
filed a supersedeas bond in the sum of P10,000 within ten (10) days from today.”

After an extension of time, the defendant and the surety filed supersedeas
bond, to wit:

“KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE, PRESENTS:

That we, FERMIN HENSON, as Principal and the FIRST NATIONAL SURETY &
ASSURANCE CO., INC., as Surety are held and firmly bound unto MARIA LOURDES
PRIANES, Plaintiff, in the penal sum of Pesos: Ten Thousand Only (P10,000.00)
Philippine currency, for the payment of which well and truly to be made we bind
ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally by
these presents:

WHEREAS, the above-named defendant has filed his appeal from the Decision of
the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, dated September 28, 1955, and
the said Fermin Henson, defendant, was ordered to file a supersedeas bond in
favor of the above-named plaintiff;

NOW, THEREFORE, the conditions of this obligation is such that if the
Appellate Court shall adjudge that the defendant has valid ground not to pay the
plaintiff in the sum ordered by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I,
in its decision in Case No. 17876 dated September 28, 1955, then this obligation
shall be void, otherwise, to remain in full force and effect.”

Thereafter, the case which was up for consideration by the Court of Appeals
was finally decided with certain modification of the trial court’s decision–

“* * * in the sense that the defendant-appellant be, as he Is hereby ordered
to pay the plaintiff-appellee a monthly support of P100.00 and is hereby
affirmed in all other respects, without pronouncement as to costs.”

Consequently, a writ of execution was issued against the defendant commanding
him to pay the plaintiff Maria Lourdes Prianes the amount of P100 a month
beginning June 19, 1952 until she reaches the age of majority, but specifying,
however, that the liability of the surety is limited up to P10,000, the amount
mentioned in the supersedeas bond.

On May 8, 1958, the surety filed a motion to fix its liability on .the bond
to P4,000, on the theory that since monthly support at P250 fixed by the trial
court was reduced by the Court of Appeals to P100, the accrued support at the
time the bond was filed would only be P4,000 instead of P10,000. The motion was
denied for lack of merit, and motion for reconsideration of such denial was
likewise denied, hence, this appeal.

The appellant contends that the Court of Appeals’ decision reducing the
amount of monthly support from P250 to P100 should result in correspondingly
reducing also the surety’s liability on the principle that the supersedeas bond
in this case, as in the case of forcible entry and detainer cases, is only
answerable for damages down to the perfection of the appeal. According to the
appellant, at the time of the said supersedeas bond was filed on November 15,
1954, the accrued pensions from June 19, 1952 the basis of P250 a month, as
granted by the trial was P10,000.

The trial court’s order granting execution pending appeal does not specify
what was to be covered by the required bond of P10,000. While the said amount is
not sufficient to cover the amount of support required in its entirety, that is
up to the time that the minor reaches Majority age (she was only 3 years old
when the com- Plaint was filed), we cannot say, nevertheless, that the trial
court, in fixing the bond at that amount, intended it only to secure payment of
the pensions up to the time of the judgment appealed from. For if such were the
intention, the same judge who had fixed the bond at P10,000 and who had passed
upon the motion to reduce the surety’s liability would have granted the said
motion after the amount of support was reduced by the Court of Appeals. The
matter of fixing the amount of bond is usually left to the fair judgment and
discretion of the trial court which has jurisdiction over the case, and unless
this discretion is abused appellate courts do not interfere.

The wording of the bond is such that “if the Appellate Court shall adjudge
that the defendant has a valid ground not to pay the plaintiff in the sum
ordered by the Court * * * in its decision in Case No. 17876 dated September 28,
1955, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise, to remain in farce and
effect.” In other words, the surety obligated itself to pay either the full
amount of P10,000 or none at all. There is no insinuation whatsoever of any
other intention of the parties, particularly on the matter of proportionate
reduction of the surety’s liability in case of modification of the judgment.

We have to reject appellant’s proposal to apply the provisions of section 8,
Rule 70 (Rule 72 of the old Rules of Court) to the effect that what should be
considered secured by the bond pending appeal is the payment of rents, damages
and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from. This
provision has been intended only for forcible entry and detainer cases. There is
nothing in the Rules indicates that it would applicable also to other cases.

The general rule on the matter, Section 3 of Rule 39, under which this case
properly falls, states that the purpose of the supersedeas bond is for the
performance of the judgment or order appealed from in case it be affirmed wholly
or in part. Since the judgment here is for the defendant to give monthly support
to the minor until she reaches the age of majority, and since the total sum
involved would not be less than the amount of the bond, which is P10,000, it was
only proper for the trial court to hold the surety answerable on its bond at its
entire amount

It will not be amiss to state here that at the time the judgment of the Court
of Appeals became final, the accrued pensions on the basis of P100 a month, plus
attorney’s fees of P2,000, would approximately amounting to P9,000.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs
against the appellant surety.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. Barrera,
Paredes, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P. and Zaldivar, JJ.
concur.