Sy Beng  Guat  was charged with  estafa  in two cases before the  Court of First  Instance of Rizal.  He posted a bail bond in the sum of  P4,000.00 subscribed by the Manila  Surety  &  Fidelity  Co., Inc. for his provisional liberty.   On the date set for the continuation of the trial, the bondsman moved for postponement on the ground that it was  still  trying  to locate the accused who,  according to its information, was confined in jail in connection with two other cases pending in Quezon City.  The court denied the motion  and ordered the forfeiture of the bond giving the  bondsman 30 days  within which to  produce the accused  and   show cause why  judgment should  not  be rendered  against it for the  amount  of the bond.  The bondsman filed a motion for an extension of 30 days within which to comply with the court's order, which was granted. A second motion for extension of  30 days was filed  by the  bondsman,  and  again  the  same  was  granted.  The bondsman having failed to produce  the accused within the period  extended, the court  granted it another  period  of grace to expire on October  20, 1955.

After the surety company failed to produce the.accused even after the several postponements given  to it, the trial court on  November 24, 1955 rendered judgment against it on the bond and ordered  that a writ of execution  be issued for the satisfaction  of the judgment.  On  November 25, 1955, the bondsman learned that the accused was confined in the New Bilibid Prisons at Muntinglupa serving the sentence imposed upon him in two criminal cases by the Court of First Instance of Manila, for which reason it could not produce him in court as required, and so on December 8, 1955 it filed a motion to lift the order of confiscation praying that it  be relieved  from its liability under the bond.  As this motion was denied, the bondsman  took the present appeal.

The law governing the forfeiture of bail is Section 15, Rule  110,  of the Rules of  Court,  which provides:

"SEC. 15. Forfeiture of bail. When the appearance of the defendant is  required by the court, his  sureties shall be notified to produce him  before  the  court on a  given  date.  If  the defendant  fails to appear  as required, the bond is declared forfeited and the bondsmen are given thirty days within which  to produce their principal and to show cause why a judgment should not be rendered against them for  the  amount  of their  bond.  Within  the  said period  of thirty  days, the bondsmen (a)  must  produce  the body of their principal or give the reason  for  its non-production; and  (b) must explain satisfactorily why  defendant did not appear before  the court when first required so to do.  Failing in  these two requisites a  judgment shall be  rendered  against  the bondsmen."

It would appear that when a  case is  set  for trial the duty of the  bondsman is to see  to it that  the accused appears on the date of trial.  If he fails to  do so,  he should be given 30 days  within which to produce the accused  and to show cause  why judgment should not  he rendered  against him for the amount of the bond, and within said period,  the bondsman  is required to do two things.  (1)  to produce the  body of the  accused or give reasons for his non-production; and  (2)  to  explain satisfactorily  why  the  accused  failed  to appear when  first required to do so.   Failure to do either  may subject  the bondsman to liability.

It thus clearly  appears  that the mere production  or appearance of  the  accused within  the period set by the court after his failure to appear when first  required  for trial would not suffice to exonerate the bondsman  from liability,  nor entitle him to release  as  a matter of right, but it is still necessary that he give satisfactory reasons why he failed to appear when first required to do so.  In the instant case,  the  bondsman not  only was  not able to  produce the body of the accused  despite the several extensions  granted to it, but failed to explain satisfactorily why  it was not able to produce him during the trial set on July 19, 1955.  It,  therefore,  failed to comply with the  law.

In its  motion  to lift  the order  of confiscation, the bondsman stated: "From reliable information the herein movant was informed that the accused  Sy Beng  Guat has already been confined at  the Bureau  of  Prisons  (Muntinglupa) serving  sentence in  connection with  Criminal Cases Nos.  10900  and 11037 of the Court of  First Instance of Manila,  as  evidenced  by a  certificate of the Bureau of Prisons."  It was there stated that he was  committed to said penitentiary only on November  30,  1955. If it is true, as certified by the  Director of Prisons,  that the  accused was  involved in two other  criminal  cases pending  in  the Court  of  First  Instance of Manila  and, as it is to be presumed, he was at all  times available to that court during  the  prosecution and  trial of said two cases, we see no plausible reason for the bondsman not to know his whereabouts and not to produce him for the trial in the instant  cases considering the several extensions granted by the court to locate and produce him  The fact that the accused was  dealt with in due course in the two cases above-mentioned so much so that he was eventually confined  in  prison,  confirms  our view  that  the bondsman has failed to do its duty to keep  a continuous surveillance over him which accounted  for  its failure  to produce him when required by  the  court.

In a recent  case  decided  by this  Court, we said: "It is obvious from the above-quoted section  that  if after notice to produce the defendant is served upon the sureties the defendant fails to appear at the time required by the court, the bail bond shall be declared forfeited, and the forfeiture can only be  discharge if,  within thirty  days, the defendant appears when  required to  do so.  The personal appearance  of the defendant  is therefore not sufficient; it is still  necessary that it  be accompanied by a satisfactory explanation  of  his  failure to  appear.  Mere explanation is not also enough.  It is of prime importance that  it be  satisfactory in order that the surety may be discharged from liability.  And it is well settled that the question  whether the  explanation given is  or is not sufficient is  a  matter  that  lies  within  the discretion  of the court"  (People vs. Felix,  G. R. No. L-10094, May 14, 1957; Italics  ours).  Here the  explanation given  is not satisfactory; neither can  it entitle the  bondsman to a mitigation of its  liability.

Wherefore, the order  appealed from is  affirmed,  with costs against appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,  A., Labrador,  Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ.,  concur.