Short answer. Yes. Article 35 of the Civil Code provides that, upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint is found to be malicious. So the person you are suing can move for a bond, though the court decides whether to grant it.
What the law says
Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
Civil Code, Article 35 — Civil Action Where No Criminal Case Prospers. Read the full provision →
What the law says
When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender.
Civil Code, Article 35 — Civil Action Where No Criminal Case Prospers. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Civil Code, Article 35 — Civil Action Where No Criminal Case Prospers. Read the full provision →
Yes, the defendant can move for a bond
Article 35 answers your question directly: upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. The person you are suing has the right under this article to ask the court, by motion, to require you to post that bond before the case proceeds further.
It takes a motion, and the court still decides
Two things stand out in the wording. First, the bond is not automatic; it takes a motion from the defendant. Second, the article uses may require, so even after the motion, the court retains discretion over whether to actually impose the bond requirement. Filing the motion puts the question before the court; it does not by itself guarantee the bond will be ordered.
What the bond protects against
The bond is specifically conditioned to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. It is not a general-purpose deposit; its purpose is tied to the possibility that your suit turns out to have been brought maliciously, which is the risk the defendant is being allowed to guard against by asking the court for the bond in the first place.
The situation Article 35 addresses in the first place
This bond provision sits inside a broader rule: when a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. That civil action, and the lighter preponderance of evidence standard the article allows for it, is the context in which the defendant's bond motion arises.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), represeted by Rosella A. santiago vs. Antonio O. Tobias III, G.R. No. 177780, January 25, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Allan M. Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union, namely, Eduardo B. Borela, et al, G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Isabelita Vital-Gozon vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 129132, July 8, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →