Bandoy vs. Judge of the Court of First Instance of La Laguna

An order directing execution against sureties on a criminal bond for the accused's unpaid fine is appealable as an order made after judgment affecting substantial rights under Section 44 of General Orders, No. 58, and mandamus lies to compel admission of such appeal when refused.

On September 9, 1907, Felix de Lagrimas was convicted by the Court of First Instance of La Laguna of the crime of allanamiento de morada and sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor with a fine of P260. He appealed to the Supreme Court and gave a bond in the form prescribed by law, signed by Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanca as sureties.

After affirmance of the judgment below, the accused was confined in jail for the period stated in the sentence and was released upon its expiration. The fine imposed was never paid by him.

Thereafter, on November 23, 1908, the Court of First Instance ordered execution to issue against the sureties for collection of the unpaid fine. Bandoy and Salamanca appeared and asked that the order be revoked, but the petition was denied. They then gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court from that order, which the court refused to admit, leading to the present mandamus proceeding. A preliminary injunction had been issued in the mandamus cause pending resolution.

• Appealability of Execution Order Against Sureties: Whether the sureties on the accused's bond are entitled to appeal from the post-judgment order directing execution against them for the unpaid fine.
• Mandamus to Compel Admission of Appeal: Whether mandamus should issue directing the judge to admit the appeal and continuing the preliminary injunction until final determination of the allowed appeal.

• Appealability of Execution Order Against Sureties: Yes. The order of execution against the sureties is an order made after judgment affecting their substantial rights and is appealable under Section 44 of General Orders, No. 58.
• Mandamus to Compel Admission of Appeal: Yes. Admission of the appeal was directed, with the preliminary injunction continued in force until final determination of the appeal, without costs to either party.

• Appealability of Execution Order Against Sureties: Liability on the bond itself was expressly left undecided; the only question was the right to have liability reviewed on appeal. Section 44 of General Orders, No. 58 permits appeal from a final judgment or from an order made after judgment affecting substantial rights. The order directing execution against the sureties to collect the unpaid fine fell within that class. The result was controlled by Melchor Babasa against the judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, No. 3026, decided April 27, 1906, where sureties subjected to execution on a bond for an accused's appearance were held entitled to appeal after refusal by the lower court, supplemented by the rule in civil cases that enforcement of final judgment against sureties on an appeal bond is reviewable.
• Mandamus to Compel Admission of Appeal: Because the appeal was legally allowable and had been improperly refused, the remedy was to direct admission of the appeal prayed for. Preservation of the status quo pending that appeal justified continuation of the preliminary injunction until its final determination, with no costs allowed.

• Appeal from order made after judgment affecting substantial rights — Either party may appeal from a final judgment or from an order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the appellant, or in any case permitted by law. Applied here, an execution order issued against sureties on a criminal bond to collect the accused's unpaid fine was deemed such an appealable post-judgment order, entitling the sureties to appellate review of their claimed liability.
• Mandamus to compel admission of an appeal wrongfully refused — Where the law grants an appeal from an order and the lower court refuses to admit it, mandamus will issue to compel admission. Applied here, refusal to admit the sureties' appeal from the execution order warranted judgment directing the judge to admit the appeal and maintaining injunctive relief pending its resolution.

• "The question before us is not whether the sureties are liable on this bond for the payment of the fine, but whether they are entitled to have this question concerning their liability argued and decided in this court." — Defines the limited scope of the decision, separating appealability from ultimate liability on the bond.
• "Either party may appeal from a final judgment or from an order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the appellant or in any case now permitted by law." — States the statutory basis under Section 44 of General Orders, No. 58 for allowing the sureties' appeal.

• Melchor Babasa vs. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, No. 3026 (April 27, 1906) — Followed as decisive authority that sureties subjected to execution on a criminal appearance bond are entitled by mandamus to an appeal refused by the lower court.
• Molina vs. De la Riva, 7 Phil. Rep., 345 — Cited as supporting authority that enforcement of a final judgment against sureties upon an appeal bond in civil cases may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
• Molina vs. De la Riva, 8 Phil. Rep., 569 — Cited additionally for the same proposition on reviewability of enforcement against appeal-bond sureties.

• Section 44, General Orders, No. 58 — Provides that either party may appeal from a final judgment or from an order made after judgment affecting substantial rights or in any case permitted by law; applied to sustain the appealability of the execution order against the sureties.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.