Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 60: Replevin || Castro & Boco

G.R. No. 111080 April 5, 2000

JOSE S. OROSA and MARTHA P. OROSA, petitioners,
On December 6, !"#, private respondent $C% Credit Corporation &led a complaint 'or replevin
and damages in t(e Regional )rial Court o' *anila against petitioner +ose ,. Orosa and one
+o(n Doe to recover possession o' a !"- $ord .aser ./ ,edan 0it( *otor and ,erial 1o.
,213B)4#/"#. )(e complaint alleged t(at on ,eptember 2", !"-, petitioner purc(ased t(e
sub5ect motor ve(icle on installment 'rom $iesta *otor ,ales Corporation. 6e e7ecuted and
delivered to $iesta *otor ,ales Corp. a promissor8 note in t(e sum o' %--,"2#.00 pa8able in
mont(l8 installments. )o secure pa8ment, petitioner e7ecuted a c(attel mortgage over t(e
sub5ect motor ve(icle in 'avor o' $iesta *otor ,ales Corp. On ,eptember 2", !"-, $iesta *otor
,ales assigned t(e promissor8 note and c(attel mortgage to private respondent $C% Credit
Corporation. )(e complaint 'urt(er alleged t(at petitioner 'ailed to pa8 part o' t(e installment
0(ic( 'ell due on +ul8 2", !"# as 0ell as t(ree 9-: consecutive installment 0(ic( 'ell due on
;ugust 2", ,eptember 2", and October 2", !"#. Conse<uentl8, private respondent $C% Credit
Corporation demanded 'rom petitioner pa8ment o' t(e entire outstanding balance o' t(e
obligation amounting to %06,/#.#" 0it( accrued interest ;1D to surrender t(e ve(icle 0(ic(
petitioner 0as allegedl8 detaining.
;'ter trial, t(e lo0er court dismissed private respondent=s complaint. )(e8 ruled t(at private
respondent $C% (ad no reason to &le t(e action since petitioner alread8 paid t(e installments
'rom +ul8 to 1ovember !"2. )(e lo0er court declared t(at private respondent 0as not entitled
to t(e 0rit o' replevin, and 0as liable to petitioner 'or actual damages under t(e replevin bond
it &led.
Ruling on petitioner=s counterclaim, t(e trial court stated t(at t(ere 0as no legal or 'actual
basis 'or t(e 0rit o' replevin and t(at its en'orcement b8 t(e s(eri> 0as ?(ig(l8 irregular, and
unla0'ul, done, as it 0as, under s(ades o' e7tortion, t(reats and 'orce.? )(e trial court ordered
private respondent to pa8 Orosa 'or damages and 0as also ordered to return to petitioner t(e
!"- $ord .aser ./ ,edan, or its e<uivalent, in @ind or value in cas(, as o' date o' 5udgment
and to pa8 t(e costs o' t(e suit.
On +une A, !"", a ?,upplemental Decision? 0as rendered b8 t(e trial court ordering private
respondent=s suret8, ,trong(old Bnsurance Co., Bnc. to 5ointl8 and severall8 C0it( private
respondentD return to petitioner t(e !"- $ord .aser ./ ,edan or its, e<uivalent in @ind or in
cas( and to pa8 t(e damages speci&ed in t(e main decision to t(e e7tent o' t(e value o' t(e
replevin bond in t(e amount o' %20,000.00.
)(e suret8 compan8 &led 0it( t(e Court o' ;ppeals a petition 'or certiorari to annul t(e Order
o' t(e trial court den8ing its motion 'or partial reconsideration, as 0ell as t(e ,upplemental
Decision. On t(e ot(er (and, private respondent appealed t(e decision o' t(e R)C *anila to t(e
Court o' ;ppeals.
)(e suret8 compan8=s petition 'or certiorari, doc@eted C;4E.R. ,% 1o. #!-", 0as dismissed b8
t(e Court o' ;ppeals= $irst Division 0(ic( up(eld t(e trial court=s order o' e7ecution pending
appeal. On 1ovember 6, !"!, t(is Court aFrmed t(e Court o' ;ppeals decision, but deleted
t(e order 'or t(e issuance o' a 0rit o' e7ecution pending appeal.
*ean0(ile, in private respondent=s appeal, t(e Court o' ;ppeals= Gig(t( Division partiall8
aFrmed t(e ruling o' t(e trial court. )(e C; deleted t(e a0ard 'or moral damages to
petitioners and also deleted t(e order $C% Credit Corporation to return to Orosa t(e sub5ect
!"- $ord .aser ,edan, its e<uivalent, in @ind or value in cas(. But t(e C; ordered $C% to pa8
Orosa t(e amount e<uivalent to t(e value o' t(e 'ourteen 9#: mont(l8 installments made b8
t(e latter to t(e 'ormer on t(e sub5ect motor ve(icle, 0it( interest 'rom t(e time o' &ling o' t(e
6ence, t(is petition 'or revie0.
H(et(er $C% Credit Corporation is entitled to t(e 0rit o' replevin.
1o. 96indi mas8adong na4discuss directl8 8ung replevin sa decisions. Doon lang sa 'acts. But
)(e ,upreme Court agrees 0it( t(e Court o' ;ppeals t(at t(e trial court erred 0(en it ordered
private respondent to return t(e sub5ect car or its e<uivalent considering t(at petitioner (ad
not 8et 'ull8 paid t(e purc(ase price. Jeril8, to sustain t(e trial court=s decision 0ould amount
to un5ust enric(ment. )(e Court o' ;ppeals 0as correct 0(en it instead ordered private
respondent to return, not t(e car itsel', but onl8 t(e amount e<uivalent to t(e 'ourteen
installments actuall8 paid 0it( interest.
But t(e petition 0as denied because o' t(e ot(er issues raised:
Ot(er issues:
On Jurisdiction of the 8
%etitioner alleges t(at t(e Gig(t( Division o' t(e Court o' ;ppeals (ad no 5urisdiction to revie0
t(e present case since t(e $irst Division o' t(e Court o' ;ppeals alread8 passed upon t(e la0
and t(e 'acts o' t(e same. %etitioner alleges t(at t(e present appeal involves t(e same causes
o' action, same parties, same 'acts and same relie' involved in t(e decision rendered b8 t(e
$irst Division and aFrmed b8 t(is Court in E.R. 1o. "#!A!.
%etitioner=s argument is untenable. +urisdiction is simpl8 t(e po0er or aut(orit8 to (ear a case.
)(e appellate 5urisdiction o' t(e Court o' ;ppeals to revie0 decisions and orders o' lo0er courts
is con'erred b8 Batas %ambansa Blg. 2!. *ore importantl8, petitioner cannot no0 assail t(e
Court o' ;ppeals= 5urisdiction a'ter (aving activel8 participated in t(e appeal and a'ter pra8ing
'or aFrmative relie'. 1eit(er can petitioner argue t(at res judicata bars t(e determination o'
t(e present case. )(e t0o cases involve di>erent sub5ect matters, parties and see@ di>erent
)(e decisions o' t(e Court o' ;ppeals in C;4E.R. ,% 1o. #!-" merely ruled on the issues of
whether the surety, Stronghold Insurance, Co., Inc., can e held jointly and solidarily liale 0it(
plainti>4appellant and whether e!ecution "ending a""eal is "ro"er under t(e 'acts and
circumstances o' t(is case. Conse<uentl8, t(is Court is not estopped 'rom revie0ing t(e
conclusions reac(ed b8 t(e court a #uo.
On the issues which $C% Credit raised for the &rst time on a""eal with the C':
%rivate respondent argued t(at based on t(e provisions o' t(e %romissor8 1ote itsel', petitioner
incurred in de'ault since, even t(oug( t(ere 0as actual pa8ment o' t(e installments 0(ic( 'ell
due on +ul8 2", !"#, as 0ell as t(e t(ree installments on ;ugust 2" to October 2", !"#, the
"ayments were all late and irregular. %rivate respondent also argued t(at petitioner assigned
t(e sub5ect car to (is daug(ter 0it(out t(e 0ritten consent o' t(e obligee, and (ence, violated
t(e terms o' t(e c(attel mortgage. *eritorious as t(ese arguments are, t(e8 come too late in
t(e da8. Basic is t(e rule t(at matters not raised in t(e complaint cannot be raised 'or t(e &rst
time on appeal.
On the issue of award of moral damages:
%etitioner insists t(at (e su>ered untold embarrassment 0(en t(e complaint 0as &led against
(im. ;ccording to petitioner, t(e car sub5ect o' t(is case 0as being used b8 (is daug(ter,
married to +ose Concepcion BBB, a scion o' a prominent 'amil8. %etitioner laments t(at (e
assigned t(e car to (is daug(ter so t(at s(e could ?appro7imate 0it(out e<ualing t(e status o'
(er in4la0s.? )(is being t(e case, petitioner e7perienced anguis( and un<uanti&able
(umiliation 0(en (e (ad to 'ace (is daug(ter=s 0ealt(8 in4la0s to e7plain t(e ?0(8 and t(e
0(ats o' t(e sub5ect case.? %etitioner 'urt(er insists t(at an a0ard o' moral damages is
especiall8 5usti&ed since (e is no ordinar8 man, but a businessman o' (ig( social standing, a
graduate o' De .a ,alle 2niversit8 and belongs to a 0ell @no0n 'amil8 o' ban@ers.
He must den8 t(e claim. )(e la0 clearl8 states t(at one ma8 onl8 recover moral damages i'
t(e8 are t(e pro7imate result o' t(e, ot(er part8=s 0rong'ul act or omission. )0o elements are
re<uired. $irst, t(e act or omission must be t(e pro7imate result o' t(e p(8sical su>ering,
mental anguis(, 'rig(t, serious an7iet8, besmirc(ed reputation, 0ounded 'eelings, moral s(oc@,
social (umiliation and similar in5ur8. ,econd, t(e act must be 0rong'ul.
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 60: Replevin || Castro & Boco
;ccording to t(e Brondial 1otes, t(is case 'alls under ,ection ! o' Rule 60
G.R. No. 1$81%2 Jan&ar' 28, 2008
SMART COMMUN"CAT"ONS, "NC., petitioner,
REG"NA M. ASTORGA, respondent.
Regina *. ;storga 9;storga: 0as emplo8ed b8 respondent ,mart Communications,
Bncorporated 9,*;R): on *a8 ", !!A as District ,ales *anager o' t(e Corporate ,ales
*ar@eting EroupK $i7ed ,ervices Division 9C,*EK$,D:. ,(e 0as receiving a mont(l8 salar8
o' %--,6/0.00. ;s District ,ales *anager, ;storga en5o8ed additional bene&ts, namel8, annual
per'ormance incentive e<uivalent to -0L o' (er annual gross salar8, a group li'e and
(ospitaliMation insurance coverage, and a car plan in t(e amount o' %#//,000.00.
Bn $ebruar8 !!", ,*;R) launc(ed an organiMational realignment to ac(ieve more eFcient
operations. )(is 0as made @no0n to t(e emplo8ees on $ebruar8 2A, !!".

%art o' t(e
reorganiMation 0as t(e outsourcing o' t(e mar@eting and sales 'orce. )(us, ,*;R) entered into
a 5oint venture agreement 0it( 1)) o' +apan, and 'ormed ,*;R)41)) *ultimedia, Bncorporated
9,1*B:. ,ince ,1*B 0as 'ormed to do t(e sales and mar@eting 0or@, ,*;R) abolis(ed t(e
C,*EK$,D, ;storgaNs division.
Despite t(e abolition o' t(e C,*EK$,D, ;storga continued reporting 'or 0or@. But on *arc( -,
!!", ,*;R) issued a memorandum advising ;storga o' t(e termination o' (er emplo8ment on
ground o' redundanc8, e>ective ;pril -, !!". ;storga received it on *arc( 6, !!".
)(e termination o' (er emplo8ment prompted ;storga to &le a Complaint 'or illegal dismissal,
non4pa8ment o' salaries and ot(er bene&ts 0it( pra8er 'or moral and e7emplar8 damages
against ,*;R) and ;nn *argaret J. ,antiago 9,antiago:.
Bn t(e meantime, on *a8 ", !!", ,*;R) sent a letter to ;storga demanding t(at s(e pa8 t(e
current mar@et value o' t(e 6onda Civic ,edan 0(ic( 0as given to (er under t(e compan8Ns
car plan program, or to surrender t(e same to t(e compan8 'or proper disposition. ;storga,
(o0ever, 'ailed and re'used to do eit(er, t(us prompting ,*;R) to &le a suit 'or replevin 0it(
t(e Regional )rial Court o' *a@ati 9R)C: on ;ugust 0, !!".
;storga moved to dismiss t(e complaint on grounds o' 9i: lac@ o' 5urisdictionO 9ii: 'ailure to state
a cause o' actionO 9iii: litis pendentiaO and 9iv: 'orum4s(opping. ;storga posited t(at t(e regular
courts (ave no 5urisdiction over t(e complaint because t(e sub5ect t(ereo' pertains to a bene&t
arising 'rom an emplo8ment contractO (ence, 5urisdiction over t(e same is vested in t(e labor
tribunal and not in regular courts.
,ubse<uentl8, on *arc( 2!, !!!, t(e R)C issued an Order den8ing ;storgaNs motion to dismiss
t(e replevin case.
;storga elevated t(e denial o' (er motion via certiorari to t(e C;, 0(ic(, in its $ebruar8 2",
2000 Decision, reversed t(e R)C ruling. Eranting t(e petition and, conse<uentl8, dismissing
t(e re"levin case, t(e C; (eld t(at t(e case is intert0ined 0it( ;storgaNs complaint 'or illegal
dismissalO t(us, it is t(e labor tribunal t(at (as rig(t'ul 5urisdiction over t(e complaint. ,*;R)Ns
motion 'or reconsideration (aving been denied,

it elevated t(e case to t(is Court, no0 doc@eted
as E.R. 1o. #"-2.
H(et(er or not it is correct to dismiss t(e case o' replevin 'or t(e alleged lac@ o' 5urisdiction.
Contrar8 to t(e C;Ns ratiocination, t(e R)C rig(t'ull8 assumed 5urisdiction over t(e suit and
acted 0ell 0it(in its discretion in den8ing ;storgaNs motion to dismiss. ,*;R)Ns demand 'or
pa8ment o' t(e mar@et value o' t(e car or, in t(e alternative, t(e surrender o' t(e car, is not a
labor, but a civil, dispute. Bt involves t(e relations(ip o' debtor and creditor rat(er t(an
emplo8ee4emplo8er relations.

;s suc(, t(e dispute 'alls 0it(in t(e 5urisdiction o' t(e regular
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 60: Replevin || Castro & Boco
Bn (asaya, Jr. v. )ilitante, t(is Court, in up(olding t(e 5urisdiction o' t(e R)C over t(e replevin
suit, e7plained:
Replevin is a possessor8 action, t(e gist o' 0(ic( is t(e rig(t o' possession in t(e plainti>. )(e
primar8 relie' soug(t t(erein is t(e return o' t(e propert8 in specie 0rong'ull8 detained b8
anot(er person. Bt is an ordinar8 statutor8 proceeding to ad5udicate rig(ts to t(e title or
possession o' personal propert8. )(e <uestion o' 0(et(er or not a part8 (as t(e rig(t o'
possession over t(e propert8 involved and i' so, 0(et(er or not t(e adverse part8 (as
0rong'ull8 ta@en and detained said propert8 as to re<uire its return to plainti>, is outside t(e
pale o' competence o' a labor tribunal and be8ond t(e &eld o' specialiMation o' .abor ;rbiters.
)(e labor dispute involved is not intert0ined 0it( t(e issue in t(e Replevin Case. )(e
respective issues raised in eac( 'orum can be resolved independentl8 on t(e ot(er. Bn 'act in "
1ovember !"6, t(e 1.RC in t(e case be'ore it (ad issued an Bn5unctive Hrit en5oining t(e
petitioners 'rom bloc@ing t(e 'ree ingress and egress to t(e Jessel and ordering t(e petitioners
to disembar@ and vacate. )(at aspect o' t(e controvers8 is properl8 settled under t(e .abor
Code. ,o also 0it( petitionersN rig(t to pic@et. But t(e determination o' t(e <uestion o' 0(o (as
t(e better rig(t to ta@e possession o' t(e Jessel and 0(et(er petitioners can deprive t(e
C(arterer, as t(e legal possessor o' t(e Jessel, o' t(at rig(t to possess in addressed to t(e
competence o' Civil Courts.
Bn t(us ruling, t(is Court is not sanctioning split 5urisdiction but de&ning avenues o' 5urisdiction
as laid do0n b8 pertinent la0s.
)(e C;, t(ere'ore, committed reversible error 0(en it overturned t(e R)C ruling and ordered
t(e dismissal o' t(e replevin case 'or lac@ o' 5urisdiction.
A.M. No. P(0)(2%8$ J&n* 18, 2008
+ENNETH HAO, complainant,
A,E C. AN!RES, S-*ri. "/, R*0ional Trial Co&r1, ,ran2- 13, !a4ao Ci1', respondent.
Be'ore us is an administrative complaint 'or gross neglect o' dut8, grave abuse o' aut(orit8
9oppression: &led b8 complainant 3ennet( 6ao against respondent ;be C. ;ndres, ,(eri> BJ o'
t(e Regional )rial Court 9R)C: o' Davao Cit8, Branc( 6.
)(e antecedent 'acts are as 'ollo0s:
Complainant 6ao is one o' t(e de'endants in a civil case 'or replevin doc@eted as Civil Case 1o.
-, 2A4200/ entitled ?*enaida Silver, doing trade and usiness under the name and style *+S
Commercial v. ,oreto +ao, 'tty. 'mado Cantos, -enneth +ao and John Does,? pending be'ore
t(e R)C o' Davao Cit8, Branc( 6.
On October A, 200/, +udge Renato ;. $uentes issued an Order o' ,eiMure against 22 motor
ve(icles allegedl8 o0ned b8 t(e complainant. On t(e strengt( o' t(e said order, ;ndres 0as
able to seiMe t0o o' t(e sub5ect motor ve(icles on October A, 200/O 'our on October ", 200/,
and anot(er t(ree on October !, 200/, or a total o' nine motor ve(icles.
Bn (is ;Fdavit4Complaint against ;ndres be'ore t(e OFce o' t(e Court ;dministrator 9OC;:,
6ao alleged t(at ;ndres gave undue advantage to Penaida ,ilver in t(e implementation o' t(e
order and t(at ;ndres seiMed t(e nine motor ve(icles in an oppressive manner. 6ao also
averred t(at ;ndres 0as accompanied b8 unidenti&ed armed personnel on board a militar8
ve(icle 0(ic( 0as e7cessive since t(ere 0ere no resistance 'rom t(em. 6ao also discovered
t(at t(e compound 0(ere t(e seiMed motor ve(icles 0ere placed is actuall8 o0ned b8 ,ilver.
On October 2, 200/, in vie0 o' t(e approval o' t(e complainantNs counter4replevin bond, +udge
Gmmanuel C. Carpio ordered ;ndres to immediatel8 cease and desist 'rom 'urt(er
implementing t(e order o' seiMure, and to return t(e seiMed motor ve(icles including its
accessories to t(eir la0'ul o0ners.
6o0ever, on October 2#, 200/, eig(t o' t(e nine seiMed motor ve(icles 0ere reported missing.
Bn (is report, ;ndres stated t(at (e 0as s(oc@ed to &nd t(at t(e motor ve(icles 0ere alread8
missing 0(en (e inspected it on October 22, 200/. 6e narrated t(at on October 2, 200/, %O-
Rodrigo Despe, one o' t(e policemen guarding t(e sub5ect motor ve(icles, reported to (im t(at
a certain ?1ono8? entered t(e compound and caused t(e duplication o' t(e ve(iclesN @e8s. But
;ndres claimed t(e motor ve(icles 0ere still intact 0(en (e inspected it on October 2, 200/.
,ubse<uentl8, 6ao reported t(at t(ree o' t(e carnapped ve(icles 0ere recovered b8 t(e
police. 6e t(en accused ;ndres o' conspiring and conniving 0it( ;tt8. Os0aldo *acadangdang
9,ilverNs counsel: and t(e policemen in t(e carnapping o' t(e motor ve(icles. 6ao also accused
;ndres o' concealing t(e depositor8 receipts 'rom t(em and pointed out t(at t(e depositor8
receipts s(o0 t(at ,ilver and ;tt8. *acadangdang 0ere t(e ones 0(o c(ose t(e policemen 0(o
0ill guard t(e motor ve(icles.
Bn (is Comment dated *arc( -, 2006, ;ndres ve(ementl8 denied violating Rep. ;ct 1o. -0!
and committing gross neglect o' dut8.
;ndres denied implementing t(e Order o' ,eiMure in an oppressive manner. 6e said (e too@ t(e
ve(icles because t(e8 0ere t(e speci&c ve(icles ordered to be seiMed a'ter c(ec@ing t(eir
engine and c(assis numbers. ;ndres li@e0ise denied t(at (e 0as accompanied b8 militar8
personnel in t(e implementation o' t(e order. 6e claimed t(at (e 0as merel8 escorted b8
policemen pursuant to t(e directive o' %olice ,enior ,upt. Catalino ,. Cu8, C(ie' o' t(e Davao
Cit8 %olice OFce. ;ndres also maintained t(at no 'orm o' (arassment or oppression 0as
committed during t(e implementation o' t(e order, claiming t(at t(e presence o' t(e
policemen 0as onl8 'or t(e purpose o' preserving peace and order, considering t(ere 0ere 22
motor ve(icles speci&ed in t(e Order o' ,eiMure. ;ndres added t(at (e e7ercised no discretion
in t(e selection o' t(e policemen 0(o assisted in t(e implementation o' t(e order, muc( less o'
t(ose 0(o 0ill guard t(e seiMed motor ve(icles.
;ndres disputed t(e allegation t(at (e neglected (is dut8 to sa'eguard t(e seiMed ve(icles b8
pointing out t(at (e placed all t(e motor ve(icles under police 0atc(. 6e added t(at t(e
policemen (ad control o' t(e compound 0(ere t(e seiMed motor ve(icles 0ere @ept.
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 60: Replevin || Castro & Boco
$inall8, ;ndres insisted t(at t(e guarding o' properties under custodia legis b8 policemen is not
pro(ibited, but is even adopted b8 t(e court. 6ence, (e pra8s t(at (e be (eld not liable 'or t(e
loss o' t(e ve(icles and t(at (e be relieved o' (is dut8 to return t(e ve(icles.
;'ter t(e OC; recommended t(at t(e matter be investigated, 0e re'erred t(e case to G7ecutive
+udge Renato ;. $uentes 'or investigation, report and recommendation.
Bn (is Bnvestigation Report dated ,eptember 2, 2006, +udge $uentes 'ound ;ndres guilt8 o'
serious negligence in t(e custod8 o' t(e nine motor ve(icles. ;'ter citing numerous
irregularities in t(e implementation o' t(e 0rit o' replevinKorder o' seiMure and a'ter pointing
out several instances 0(ere ;ndres lac@ed due diligence, +udge $uentes recommended t(at
;ndres be suspended 'rom oFce.
)(e OC; disagreed 0it( t(e observations o' +udge $uentes. Bt recommended t(at ;ndres be
(eld liable onl8 'or simple neglect o' dut8 and be suspended 'or one 9: mont( and one 9: da8.
H(et(er ,(eri> ;ndres is guilt8 o' gross negligence in t(e per'ormance o' (is dut8.
Qes. He adopt t(e recommendation o' t(e investigating 5udge.
Being an oFcer o' t(e court, ;ndres must be a0are t(at t(ere are 0ell4de&ned steps provided
in t(e Rules o' Court regarding t(e proper implementation o' a 0rit o' replevin andKor an order
o' seiMure. )(e Rules, li@e0ise, is e7plicit on t(e dut8 o' t(e s(eri> in its implementation. To
r*2api1&la1* 5-a1 6-o&ld 7* 2o88on 9no5l*d0* 1o 6-*ri.6, 1-* p*r1in*n1 pro4i6ion6
o: R&l* 30, o: 1-* R&l*6 o: Co&r1 r*0ardin0 1-* !&1' o: 1-* 6-*ri. ;S*21ion $< and
di6po6i1ion o: prop*r1' 7' 6-*ri. ;S*21ion 3<.
$irst, t(e rules provide t(at propert8 seiMed under a 0rit o' replevin is not to be delivered
immediatel8 to t(e plainti>. Bn accordance 0it( t(e said rules, ;ndres s(ould (ave 0aited no
less t(an &ve da8s in order to give t(e complainant an opportunit8 to ob5ect to t(e suFcienc8
o' t(e bond or o' t(e suret8 or sureties t(ereon, or re<uire t(e return o' t(e seiMed motor
ve(icles b8 &ling a counter4bond. )(is, (e 'ailed to do.
Records s(o0 t(at ;ndres too@ possession o' t0o o' t(e sub5ect motor ve(icles on October A,
200/, 'our on October ", 200/, and anot(er t(ree on October !, 200/. ,imultaneousl8, as
evidenced b8 t(e depositor8 receipts, on October ", 200/, ,ilver received 'rom ;ndres si7 o'
t(e seiMed motor ve(icles, and t(ree more motor ve(icles on October !, 200/. Conse<uentl8,
t(ere is no <uestion t(at ,ilver 0as alread8 in possession o' t(e nine seiMed ve(icles
immediatel8 a'ter seiMure, or no more t(an t(ree da8s a'ter t(e ta@ing o' t(e ve(icles. )(us,
;ndres committed a clear violation o' ,ection 6, Rule 60 o' t(e Rules o' Court 0it( regard to t(e
proper disposal o' t(e propert8.
Bt matters not t(at ,ilver 0as in possession o' t(e seiMed ve(icles merel8 'or sa'e@eeping as
stated in t(e depositor8 receipts. )(e rule is clear t(at t(e propert8 seiMed s(ould not be
immediatel8 delivered to t(e plainti>, and t(e s(eri> must retain custod8 o' t(e seiMed
propert8 'or at least &ve da8s. 6ence, t(e act o' ;ndres in delivering t(e seiMed ve(icles
immediatel8 a'ter seiMure to ,ilver 'or 0(atever purpose, 0it(out observing t(e &ve4da8
re<uirement &nds no legal 5usti&cation.
.i@e0ise, ;ndresN claim t(at (e (ad no @no0ledge t(at t(e compound is o0ned b8 ,ilver 'ails to
convince us. Regardless o' 0(o actuall8 o0ns t(e compound, t(e 'act remains t(at ;ndres
delivered t(e ve(icles to ,ilver prematurel8. Bt violates t(e rule re<uiring (im to sa'e@eep t(e
ve(icles in (is custod8. )(e alleged lac@ o' 'acilit8 to store t(e seiMed ve(icles is unacceptable
considering t(at (e s(ould (ave deposited t(e same in a bonded 0are(ouse. B' t(is 0as not
'easible, (e s(ould (ave soug(t prior aut(oriMation 'rom t(e court issuing t(e 0rit be'ore
delivering t(e ve(icles to ,ilver.
,econd, it must be stressed t(at 'rom t(e moment an order o' deliver8 in replevin is e7ecuted
b8 ta@ing possession o' t(e propert8 speci&ed t(erein, suc( propert8 is in custodia legis. ;s
legal custodian, it is ;ndresN dut8 to sa'e@eep t(e seiMed motor ve(icles. 6ence, 0(en (e
passed (is dut8 to sa'eguard t(e motor ve(icles to ,ilver, (e committed a clear neglect o' dut8.
)(ird, 0e are appalled t(at even a'ter %O- Despe reported t(e unaut(oriMed duplication o' t(e
ve(iclesN @e8s, ;ndres 'ailed to ta@e e7tra precautionar8 measures to ensure t(e sa'et8 o' t(e
ve(icles. Bt is obvious t(at t(e ve(icles 0ere put at ris@ b8 t(e unaut(oriMed duplication o' t(e
@e8s o' t(e ve(icles. 1eit(er did (e immediatel8 report t(e incident to t(e police or to t(e
court. )(e loss o' t(e motor ve(icles could (ave been prevented i' ;ndres immediatel8 as@ed
t(e court 'or an order to trans'er t(e ve(icles to anot(er secured place as soon as (e
discovered t(e unaut(oriMed duplication. 2nder t(ese circumstances, even an ordinar8 prudent
man 0ould (ave e7ercised e7tra diligence. 6is 0arning to t(e policemen to closel8 0atc( t(e
ve(icles 0as insuFcient. ;ndres cannot toss bac@ to ,ilver or to t(e policemen t(e
responsibilit8 'or t(e loss o' t(e motor ve(icles since (e remains c(ieR8 responsible 'or t(eir
sa'e@eeping as legal custodian t(ereo'. Bndeed, ;ndresN 'ailure to ta@e t(e necessar8 precaution
and proper monitoring o' t(e ve(icles to ensure its sa'et8 constitutes plain negligence.
$ourt(, despite t(e cease and desist order, ;ndres 'ailed to return t(e motor ve(icles to t(eir
la0'ul o0ners. Bnstead o' returning t(e motor ve(icles immediatel8 as directed, (e opted to
0rite ,ilver and demand t(at s(e put up an indemnit8 bond to secure t(e t(ird4part8 claims.
Conse<uentl8, due to (is dela8, t(e eventual loss o' t(e motor ve(icles rendered t(e order to
return t(e seiMed ve(icles ine>ectual to t(e pre5udice o' t(e complaining o0ners.
Bt must be stressed t(at as court custodian, it 0as ;ndresN responsibilit8 to ensure t(at t(e
motor ve(icles 0ere sa'el8 @ept and t(at t(e same 0ere readil8 available upon order o' t(e
court or demand o' t(e parties concerned. ,peci&call8, s(eri>s, being ran@ing oFcers o' t(e
court and agents o' t(e la0, must disc(arge t(eir duties 0it( great care and diligence. Bn
serving and implementing court 0rits, as 0ell as processes and orders o' t(e court, t(e8 cannot
a>ord to err 0it(out a>ecting adversel8 t(e proper dispensation o' 5ustice. ,(eri>s pla8 an
important role in t(e administration o' 5ustice and as agents o' t(e la0, (ig( standards o'
per'ormance are e7pected o' t(em. 6ence, (is 'ailure to return t(e motor ve(icles at t(e time
0(en its return 0as still 'easible constitutes anot(er instance o' neglect o' dut8.
$i't(, as 'ound b8 t(e OC;, 0e agree t(at ;ndres also disregarded t(e provisions o' Rule # o'
t(e Rules o' Court 0it( regard to pa8ment o' e7penses.
Bn vie0 o' t(e 'oregoing, t(ere is no doubt t(at ;ndres 'ailed to live up to t(e standards
re<uired o' (is position. )(e number o' instances t(at ;ndres stra8ed 'rom t(e regular course
observed in t(e proper implementation o' t(e orders o' t(e court cannot be countenanced.
)(us, ta@ing into account t(e numerous times (e 0as 'ound negligent and careless o' (is
duties coupled 0it( (is utter disregard o' legal procedures, (e cannot be considered guilt8
merel8 o' simple negligence. 6is acts constitute gross negligence.
Eood 'ait( on t(e part o' ;ndres, or lac@ o' it, in proceeding to properl8 e7ecute (is mandate
0ould be o' no moment, 'or (e is c(argeable 0it( t(e @no0ledge t(at being an oFcer o' t(e
court tas@ed t(ere'or, it be(ooves (im to ma@e due compliance. 6e is e7pected to live up to
t(e e7acting standards o' (is oFce and (is conduct must at all times be c(aracteriMed b8
rectitude and 'ort(rig(tness, and so above suspicion and mistrust as 0ell. )(us, an act o' gross
neglect resulting in loss o' properties in custodia legis ruins t(e con&dence lodged b8 t(e
parties to a suit or t(e citiMenr8 in our 5udicial process. )(ose responsible 'or suc( act or
omission cannot escape t(e disciplinar8 po0er o' t(is Court.
;nent t(e allegation o' grave abuse o' aut(orit8 9oppression:, 0e li@e0ise agree 0it( t(e
observations o' t(e investigating 5udge. Records s(o0 t(at ;ndres started en'orcing t(e 0rit o'
replevinKorder o' seiMure on t(e same da8 t(at t(e order o' seiMure 0as issued. 6e also
admitted t(at (e too@ t(e ve(icles o' persons 0(o are not parties to t(e replevin case. 6e
'urt(er admitted t(at (e too@ one ve(icle belonging to a certain +unard Gscudero 0it(out t(e
latterNs @no0ledge and even caused t(e duplication o' its @e8s in order t(at it ma8 be ta@en b8
;ndres. Certainl8, t(ese are indications t(at ;ndres en'orced t(e order o' seiMure 0it( undue
(aste and 0it(out giving t(e complainant prior notice or reasonable time to deliver t(e motor
ve(icles. 6ence, ;ndres is guilt8 o' grave abuse o' aut(orit8 9oppression:.
H(en a 0rit is placed in t(e (ands o' a s(eri>, it is (is dut8, in t(e absence o' an8 instructions
to t(e contrar8, to proceed 0it( reasonable celerit8 and promptness to e7ecute it according to
its mandate. 6o0ever, t(e prompt implementation o' an order o' seiMure is called 'or onl8 in
instances 0(ere t(ere is no <uestion regarding t(e rig(t o' t(e plainti> to t(e propert8. H(ere
t(ere is suc( a <uestion, t(e prudent recourse 'or ;ndres is to desist 'rom e7ecuting t(e order
and conve8 t(e in'ormation to (is 5udge and to t(e plainti>.
)rue, s(eri>s must compl8 0it( t(eir mandated ministerial dut8 to implement 0rits promptl8
and e7peditiousl8, but e<uall8 true is t(e principle t(at s(eri>s b8 t(e nature o' t(eir 'unctions
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 60: Replevin || Castro & Boco
must at all times conduct t(emselves 0it( propriet8 and decorum and act above suspicion.
)(ere must be no room 'or an8one to con5ecture t(at s(eri>s and deput8 s(eri>s as oFcers o'
t(e court (ave conspired 0it( an8 o' t(e parties to a case to obtain a 'avorable 5udgment or
immediate e7ecution. )(e s(eri> is at t(e 'ront line as representative o' t(e 5udiciar8 and b8 (is
act (e ma8 build or destro8 t(e institution.
;ndres is 'ound GU"T= o' gross neglect o' dut8 and grave abuse o' aut(orit8 9oppression: and
is SUSPEN!E! 'or one 9: 8ear and si7 96: mont(s 0it(out pa8. 6e is also
(ereb8 >ARNE! t(at a repetition o' t(e same or similar o>enses in t(e 'uture s(all be dealt
0it( more severel8.
G.R. No. 1358?5 J&n* 5, 200?
TER=NGRACE R"/ERA, P*1i1ion*r,
FORENC"O . /ARGAS, R*6pond*n1.
On $ebruar8 2#, 200-, respondent $lorencio Jargas 9Jargas: &led a complaint

against petitioner
and several +o(n Does be'ore Branc( 02 o' t(e Regional )rial Court 9R)C: in )uguegarao Cit8,
Caga8an, 'or t(e recover8 o' a /0 )K6 roc@ crus(ing plant located in ,aria8a, SueMon. Bn (is
complaint and aFdavit, Jargas claims o0ners(ip o' t(e said e<uipment, (aving purc(ased and
imported t(e same directl8 'rom 68un Dae )rading Co., in ,eoul, ,out( 3orea, in December
!!-. )(e e<uipment 0as allegedl8 entrusted to petitionerNs (usband, +an ). Rivera, 0(o died
sometime in late 2002, as careta@er o' respondentNs construction aggregates business in
Batangas. ;ccording to Jargas, petitioner 'ailed to return t(e said e<uipment a'ter (er
(usbandNs deat( despite (is repeated demands, t(us 'orcing (im to resort to court action. )(e
complaint 0as accompanied b8 a pra8er 'or t(e issuance o' a 0rit o' replevin and t(e
necessar8 bond amounting to %2,#00,000.00.
,ummons dated $ebruar8 2#, 200- 0as served upon petitioner t(roug( (er personal secretar8
on ;pril 2", 200- at (er residence in %araTa<ue Cit8. Bnterestingl8, (o0ever, t(e 0rit o'
replevin 0as served upon and signed b8 a certain +osep( Re5umo, t(e securit8 guard on dut8 in
petitionerNs crus(ing plant in ,aria8a, SueMon on ;pril 2!, 200-,

contrar8 to t(e s(eri>Ns
return stating t(at t(e 0rit 0as served upon Rivera.
On *a8 ", 200-, Rivera &led (er ans0er, mani'estation, and motion 'or t(e acceptance o'
petitionerNs redeliver8 bond.
On *a8 2, 200-, t(e R)C issued an Order disapproving petitionerNs redeliver8 bond application
'or 'ailure to compl8 0it( t(e re<uirements under ,ections / and 6 o' Rule 60 o' t(e Rules o'

Hit(out directl8 sa8ing so, t(e R)C 'aulted petitioner 'or (er 'ailure to &le t(e application
'or redeliver8 bond 0it(in &ve 9/: da8s 'rom t(e date o' seiMure as provided in t(e Rules o'
;ggrieved, petitioner elevated t(e matter to t(e C; t(roug( a petition 'or certiorari under Rule
6/. )(is, too, 0as denied 'or lac@ o' merit. %etitioner moved 'or reconsideration, but it 0as also

2ndaunted, petitioner no0 comes to us via t(is Rule #/ petition.
%etitioner argues t(at t(e R)C committed grave abuse o' discretion in den8ing (er counterbond
on t(e ground t(at it 0as &led out o' time. ,(e contends t(at t(e mandator8 &ve4da8 period
did not even begin to run in t(is case due to t(e improper service o' t(e 0rit o' replevin,
contrar8 to ,ection # o' Rule 60.
H(at is t(e e>ect o' a 0rit o' replevin t(at (as been improperl8 servedU
)(ere is no rig(t to seiMe and to detain t(e propert8 s(all pass, t(e act o' t(e s(eri> being bot(
unla0'ul and unconstitutional.
Broadl8 understood in t(is 5urisdiction, replevin is bot( a 'orm o' principal remed8 and o'
provisional relie'. Bt ma8 re'er eit(er to t(e action itsel', i.e., to regain t(e possession o'
personal c(attels being 0rong'ull8 detained 'rom t(e plainti> b8 anot(er, or to t(e provisional
remed8 t(at 0ould allo0 t(e plainti> to retain t(e t(ing during t(e pendenc8 o' t(e action and
to (old it "endente lite. )(e action is primaril8 possessor8 in nature and generall8 determines
not(ing more t(an t(e rig(t o' possession.
; person see@ing a remed8 in an action 'or replevin must 'ollo0 t(e course laid do0n in t(e
statute, since t(e remed8 is penal in nature. H(en no attempt is made to compl8 0it( t(e
provisions o' t(e la0 relating to seiMure in t(is @ind o' action, t(e 0rit or order allo0ing t(e
seiMure is erroneous and ma8 be set aside on motion b8 t(e adverse part8. Be it noted,
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 60: Replevin || Castro & Boco
(o0ever, t(at a motion to <uas( t(e 0rit o' replevin goes to t(e tec(nical regularit8 o'
procedure, and not to t(e merits o' t(e case in t(e principal action.
)(e process regarding t(e e7ecution o' t(e 0rit o' replevin in ,ection # o' Rule 60 is
unambiguous: t(e s(eri>, upon receipt o' t(e 0rit o' replevin and prior to t(e ta@ing o' t(e
propert8, must serve a cop8 t(ereo' to t(e adverse part8 9petitioner, in t(is case: toget(er 0it(
t(e application, t(e aFdavit o' merit, and t(e replevin bond.

)(e reasons are simple, i.e., to
provide proper notice to t(e adverse part8 t(at (is propert8 is being seiMed in accordance 0it(
t(e courtNs order upon application b8 t(e ot(er part8, and ultimatel8 to allo0 t(e adverse part8
to ta@e t(e proper remed8 conse<uent t(ereto.
,ervice o' t(e 0rit upon t(e adverse part8 is mandator8 in line 0it( t(e constitutional guarant8
on procedural due process and as sa'eguard against unreasonable searc(es and seiMures.

B' t(e
0rit 0as not served upon t(e adverse part8 but 0as instead merel8 (anded to a person 0(o is
neit(er an agent o' t(e adverse part8 nor a person aut(oriMed to receive court processes on (is
be(al', t(e service t(ereo' is erroneous and is, t(ere'ore, invalid, running a'oul o' t(e statutor8
and constitutional re<uirements. )(e service is li@e0ise invalid i' t(e 0rit o' replevin 0as
served 0it(out t(e re<uired documents. 2nder t(ese circumstances, no rig(t to seiMe and to
detain t(e propert8 s(all pass, t(e act o' t(e s(eri> being bot( unla0'ul and unconstitutional.
On *a8 ", 200-, or nine 9!: da8s a'ter t(e 0rit 0as served on t(e securit8 guard, petitioner
&led an ans0er to t(e complaint accompanied b8 a pra8er 'or t(e approval o' (er redeliver8
bond. )(e R)C, (o0ever, denied t(e redeliver8 bond 'or (aving been &led be8ond t(e &ve4da8
mandator8 period prescribed in ,ections / and 6 o' Rule 60. But since t(e 0rit 0as invalidl8
served, petitioner is correct in contending t(at t(ere is no rec@oning point 'rom 0(ic( t(e
mandator8 &ve4da8 period s(all commence to run.
)(e trial court is reminded t(at not onl8 s(ould t(e 0rit or order o' replevin compl8 0it( all t(e
re<uirements as to matters o' 'orm or contents prescribed b8 t(e Rules o' Court. )(e 0rit must
also satis'8 proper service in order to be valid and e>ective: i.e. it s(ould be directed to t(e
oFcer 0(o is aut(oriMed to serve itO and it s(ould be served upon t(e person 0(o not onl8 (as
t(e possession or custod8 o' t(e propert8 involved but 0(o is also a part8 or agent o' a part8
to t(e action. Conse<uentl8, a trial court is deemed to (ave acted 0it(out or in e7cess o' its
5urisdiction 0it( respect to t(e ancillar8 action o' replevin i' it seiMes and detains a personalt8
on t(e basis o' a 0rit t(at 0as improperl8 served, suc( as 0(at (appened in t(is case.
;t t(e outset, petitionerNs proper remed8 s(ould (ave been to &le a motion to <uas( t(e 0rit o'
replevin or a motion to vacate t(e order o' seiMure. 1evert(eless, petitionerNs &ling o' an
application 'or a redeliver8 bond, 0(ile not necessar8, did not t(ereb8 0aive (er rig(t to
<uestion t(e improper service. Bt no0 becomes imperative 'or t(e trial court to restore t(e
parties to t(eir 'ormer positions b8 returning t(e seiMed propert8 to petitioner and b8
disc(arging t(e replevin bond &led b8 respondent. )(e trial, 0it( respect to t(e main action,
s(all continue. Respondent ma8, (o0ever, &le a ne0 application 'or replevin s(ould (e c(oose
to do so.
G.R. No. 15%)88 No4*87*r 2), 200?
ROGER /. NA/ARRO, %etitioner,
HON. JOSE . ESCO,"!O, Pr*6idin0 J&d0*, RTC ,ran2- %), Ca0a'an d* Oro Ci1', and
+AREN T. GO, doin0 7&6in*66 &nd*r 1-* na8* +ARGO ENTERPR"SES, Respondents.
Roger 1avarro leased 'rom 3argo Gnterprises, represented b8 its manager E.G11 EO, t0o
motor ve(icles 9bot( $2,O HB)6 *O21)GD CR;1G: under t0o separate lease agreement. Bn
accordance 0it( t(e provisions o' t(e lease agreement, 1avarro delivered si7 post4dated
c(ec@s eac( in t(e amount o' %66,---.-- 0(ic( 0as supposedl8 pa8ment 'or t(e agreed
rentals. 6o0ever, 0(en t(e c(ec@s 0ere presented to %BCom, t(e8 0ere dis(onored 'or
insuFcienc8 o' 'unds and despite 0ritten and oral demands 'or 1avarro to eit(er pa8 t(e
balance or return t(e sub5ect motor ve(icles, 1avarro 'ailed to compl8 0it( (is obligations.
)(us, on ,eptember 2, !!", respondent 3aren ). Eo &led t0o complaints, doc@eted as Civil
Case 1os. !"4/!! 9&rst complaint: and !"4/!" 9second complaint:, be'ore t(e R)C 'or replevin
andKor sum o' mone8 0it( damages against 1avarro. Bn t(ese complaints, 3aren Eo pra8ed
t(at t(e R)C issue 0rits o' replevin 'or t(e seiMure o' t0o 92: motor ve(icles in 1avarroNs
On October 2, !!" and October #, !!", t(e R)C issued 0rits o' replevin 'or bot( casesO as
a result, t(e ,(eri> seiMed t(e t0o ve(icles and delivered t(em to t(e possession o' 3aren Eo.
Bn (is ;ns0ers, 1avarro alleged as a special aFrmative de'ense t(at t(e t0o complaints stated
no cause o' action, since 3aren Eo 0as not a part8 to t(e .ease ;greements 0it( Option to
%urc(ase 9collectivel8, t(e lease agreements: V t(e actionable documents on 0(ic( t(e
complaints 0ere based.
On 1avarroNs motion, bot( cases 0ere dul8 consolidated on December -, !!!.
Bn its *a8 ", 2000 order, t(e R)C dismissed t(e case on t(e ground t(at t(e complaints did not
state a cause o' action.
Bn response to t(e motion 'or reconsideration 3aren Eo &led dated *a8 26, 2000, t(e R)C
issued anot(er order dated +ul8 26, 2000 setting aside t(e order o' dismissal. ;cting on t(e
presumption t(at Elenn EoNs leasing business is a con5ugal propert8, t(e R)C (eld t(at 3aren
Eo (ad suFcient interest in (is leasing business to &le t(e action against 1avarro. 6o0ever,
t(e R)C (eld t(at 3aren Eo s(ould (ave included (er (usband, Elenn Eo, in t(e complaint
based on ,ection #, Rule - o' t(e Rules o' Court 9Rules:. )(us, t(e lo0er court ordered 3aren Eo
to &le a motion 'or t(e inclusion o' Elenn Eo as co4plainti>.
H(en t(e R)C denied 1avarroNs motion 'or reconsideration on *arc( A, 200, 1avarro &led a
petition 'or certiorari 0it( t(e C;, essentiall8 contending t(at t(e R)C committed grave abuse
o' discretion 0(en it reconsidered t(e dismissal o' t(e case and directed 3aren Eo to amend
(er complaints b8 including (er (usband Elenn Eo as co4plainti>. ;ccording to 1avarro, a
complaint 0(ic( 'ailed to state a cause o' action could not be converted into one 0it( a cause
o' action b8 mere amendment or supplemental pleading.
On October 6, 200, t(e C; denied 1avarroNs petition and aFrmed t(e R)CNs order. )(e C;
also denied 1avarroNs motion 'or reconsideration in its resolution o' *a8 2!, 2002, leading to
t(e &ling o' t(e present petition.
H(et(er prior demand is re<uired be'ore n action 'or a 0rit o' replevin is &led.
1o. 1avarro apparentl8 li@ens a replevin action to an unla0'ul detainer. 6e is 0rong.
$or a 0rit o' replevin to issue, all t(at t(e applicant must do is to &le an aFdavit and bond,
pursuant to ,ection 2, Rule 60 o' t(e Rules, 0(ic( states:
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 60: Replevin || Castro & Boco
,ec. 2. ;Fdavit and bond.
)(e applicant must s(o0 b8 (is o0n aFdavit or t(at o' some ot(er person 0(o personall8
@no0s t(e 'acts:
9a: )(at t(e appli2an1 i6 1-* o5n*r o: 1-* prop*r1' claimed, particularl8
describing it, or i6 *n1i1l*d 1o 1-* po66*66ion t(ereo'O
9b: )(at t(e propert8 is 5ron0:&ll' d*1ain*d 7' 1-* ad4*r6* par1', alleging t(e
cause o' detention t(ereo' according to t(e best o' (is @no0ledge, in'ormation, and
9c: )(at t(e propert8 (as not been distrained or ta@en 'or a ta7 assessment or a &ne
pursuant to la0, or seiMed under a 0rit o' e7ecution or preliminar8 attac(ment, or
ot(er0ise placed under custodia legis, or i' so seiMed, t(at it is e7empt 'rom suc(
seiMure or custod8O and
9d: )(e actual mar@et value o' t(e propert8.
)(e applicant must also give a bond, e7ecuted to t(e adverse part8 in double t(e value o' t(e
propert8 as stated in t(e aFdavit a'orementioned, 'or t(e return o' t(e propert8 to t(e adverse
part8 i' suc( return be ad5udged, and 'or t(e pa8ment to t(e adverse part8 o' suc( sum as (e
ma8 recover 'rom t(e applicant in t(e action.
He see not(ing in t(ese provisions 0(ic( re<uires t(e applicant to ma@e a prior demand on t(e
possessor o' t(e propert8 be'ore (e can &le an action 'or a 0rit o' replevin. )(us, prior demand
is not a condition precedent to an action 'or a 0rit o' replevin.
*ore importantl8, 1avarro is no longer in t(e position to claim t(at a prior demand is
necessar8, as (e (as alread8 admitted in (is ;ns0ers t(at (e (ad received t(e letters t(at
3aren Eo sent (im, demanding t(at (e eit(er pa8 (is unpaid obligations or return t(e leased
motor ve(icles. 1avarroNs position t(at a demand is necessar8 and (as not been made is
t(ere'ore totall8 unmeritorious.
Ot(er issue:
On whether -aren .o had su/cient interest to &le an action against 0avarro
Qes. H(ile 3;REO Gnterprises is in 'act a sole proprietors(ip, 0(ic( is not vested 0it( 5uridical
or legal personalit8 to &le or de'end and action in court, Wthe com"laint in the court elow
should have een &led in the name of the owner of Juasing +ardware. 1he allegation in the
ody of the com"laint would show that the suit is rought y such "erson as "ro"rietor or
owner of the usiness conducted under the name and style Juasing +ardware. 1he descri"tive
words 2doing usiness as Juasing +ardware2 may e added to the title of the case, as is
customarily done. ;lso, 3aren Eo is still considered as a real part84in4interest, under ,ec. 2 o'
Rule -. )(e ,C (as resolved t(at 3;REO Gnterprises is not 3aren EoNs parap(ernal propert8 but
part o' (er and Elenn EoNs con5ugal propert8. )(is being t(e case and 'ollo0ing ;rt. 2# o' t(e
$amil8 Code, eit(er 3aren Eo or Elenn Eo is empo0ered to spea@ and act 0it( aut(orit8 in
managing t(eir con5ugal propert8 V 3;REO Gnterprises.
A.M. No. P(0$(1?20 A&0&61 1), 200)
SPOUSES NORMAN!= and RUTH ,AUT"STA, Co8plainan16,
ERNESTO . SUA, S-*ri. "/, R*0ional Trial Co&r1, ,ran2- ?8, @&*Aon
Ci1', R*6pond*n1.
FACTS# On 6 December 200-, Rut( B. Bautista 9Rut(: borro0ed %-00,000 'rom CeniMa C. Elor
9Elor:. )(e loan, pa8able in t(ree mont(s, bore a mont(l8 interest o' &ve percent. )(e t(ree4
mont( period commenced on 6 December 200- and e7pired on 6 *arc( 200#. )o secure t(e
loan, Rut( e7ecuted a c(attel mortgage over (er 6onda CRJ in 'avor o' Elor.
2pon maturit8 o' t(e loan, Elor repeatedl8 demanded pa8ment 'rom Rut(. Despite t(e
repeated demands, Rut( re'used to pa8 (er debt, or surrender possession o' t(e ve(icle. )(us,
on 6 *a8 200#, Elor &led 0it( t(e Regional )rial Court, Branc( !", SueMon Cit8 9trial court:, a
civil case 'or 5udicial 'oreclosure o' c(attel mortgage 0it( pra8er 'or t(e issuance o' a 0rit o'
)(erea'ter, t(e trial court issued a 0rit o' replevin dated # *a8 200# directing Grnesto .. ,ula
9respondent:, ,(eri> BJ o' t(e trial court, to ta@e possession o' t(e ve(icle and @eep it in (is
Respondent en'orced t(e 0rit on A *a8 200#. On 20 *a8 200#, spouses 1ormand8 R. Bautista
and Rut( B. Bautista 9complainants: &led 0it( t(e trial court an urgent motion 'or t(e return o'
t(e ve(icle and submission o' counter4bond. On 2 *a8 200#, complainants &led a motion to
0it(dra0 t(e urgent motion, attac(ing t(ereto an omnibus motion 'or entr8 o' appearance,
urgent setting o' (earing, and redeliver8 o' t(e ve(icle to t(em. %ursuant to ,ection / o' Rule
60, complainants re<uired t(e return o' t(e ve(icle to t(em b8 &ling a counter4bond and
serving Elor a cop8 o' t(e counter4bond.
Because t(e trial court 'ailed to approve complainantsN counter4bond 0it(in t(e &ve4da8 period
provided in ,ection 6 o' Rule 60, Elor, in a letter dated 2# *a8 200#, as@ed respondent to
deliver t(e ve(icle to (er. Bn a letter dated 26 *a8 200#, complainants as@ed respondent not to
deliver t(e ve(icle to Elor because 9: pursuant to ,ection /, t(e8 (ad re<uired t(e return o'
t(e ve(icle to t(em and &led t(e corresponding counter4bondO 92: t(e ve(icleNs deliver8 to Elor
0as not 5usti&ed under ,ection 6O and 9-: t(ere 0as no order 'rom t(e trial court directing t(e
deliver8 to Elor. Bn a letter dated 26 *a8 200#, Elor reiterated (er demand on respondent to
deliver t(e ve(icle to (erO ot(er0ise, s(e 0ould be constrained to pursue legal actions against
On 26 *a8 200#, complainants alleged t(at respondent approac(ed t(em in t(e SueMon Cit8
6all o' +ustice building as@ing t(em to 0ait 'or (im b8 t(e benc(es at t(e bac@ o' t(e second
Roor. )(ere, respondent told t(em t(at (e 0as 0illing to ignore ElorNs re<uest in e7c(ange
'or %20,000. Hit( a little (esitation, t(e8 o>ered (im %-,000 and promised to give t(e balance
on t(e 'ollo0ing da8. Respondent agreed and immediatel8 received t(e %-,000. On t(e ne7t
da8, (o0ever, complainants did not give t(e balance. )(e8 as@ed respondent i' (e could give
t(em more time to raise t(e mone8. Respondent 0as ir@ed b8 t(is.
On 2A *a8 200#, respondent &led a s(eri>Ns mani'estation as@ing t(e trial courtNs guidance on
0(et(er (e s(ould deliver t(e ve(icle to Elor or @eep it in custodia legis: )(is *ani'estation is
respect'ull8 &led be'ore t(e 6onorable Court, in order t(at (e ma8be CsicD guided on 0(et(er
(e s(ould release t(e ve(icle as demanded b8 plainti> or (old its release until suc( time t(at
t(e *otions and Counter4bond &led b8 de'endants is resolved as re<uested b8 t(e de'endant.
Hit(out 0aiting 'or t(e trial courtNs instructions regarding t(e ve(icle, respondent &led (is
s(eri>Ns return on 2" *a8 200# stating t(at (e (ad alread8 delivered t(e ve(icle to Elor: On
*a8 2A, 200#, a'ter t(e e7piration o' t(e &ve 9/: da8s CsicD period and in t(e absence o' an8
Court OrderKs, undersigned turned4over t(e possession o' t(e motor ve(icle to t(e %lainti> as
per CourtK,(eri>Ns Receipt (ereto attac(ed.
H(et(er or not t(e respondent erred 0(en (e delivered t(e ve(icle to Elor 0it(out 0aiting 'or
t(e trial courtNs instructions on t(e matter.
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 60: Replevin || Castro & Boco
Bn t(is case, plainti>Kapplicant (ad posted a replevin bond dul8 approved b8 t(e court.
1evert(eless, one o' t(e elements upon 0(ic( t(e propert8 sub5ect o' replevin ma8 be
delivered to t(e plainti>Kapplicant is lac@ing. )(ere appears to be no court order issued 8et 'or
t(e release o' t(e a'orementioned propert8 to t(e plainti>Kapplicant. )(e order dated 2 *a8
200# issued b8 t(e court onl8 directed respondent to ta@e into (is custod8 t(e sub5ect motor
ve(icle. $urt(er, r*6pond*n1 Bl*d a 8ani:*61a1ion 6**9in0 0&idan2* :ro8 1-* 2o&r1 on
1-* di6po6al o: 1-* 6*iA*d prop*r1'. H*n2*, r*6pond*n1C6 D&61iB2a1ion 1-a1 1-*
r*l*a6* o: 1-* 6*iA*d prop*r1' 1o 1-* plain1i.Eappli2an1 :ollo56 a6 a 8a11*r o: 2o&r6*
7*2a&6* 1-* appli2an1Eplain1i. -ad alr*ad' Bl*d a r*pl*4in 7ond 1o an65*r :or an'
da8a0* 1-a1 8a' 7* 6&.*r*d 7' 2o8plainan16 8a' no1 7* 0i4*n 5*i0-1.
Bt must be stressed t(at t(e prerogatives o' ,(eri>s do not give t(em an8 discretion to
determine 0(o among t(e parties is entitled to possession o' t(e sub5ect propert8. T-*
appropria1* 2o&r6* o: a21ion 6-o&ld -a4* 7**n :or r*6pond*n1 1o 5ai1 :or 1-*
in61r&21ion6 o: 1-* 2o&r1 a6 1o 5-o8 -* 5ill r*l*a6* 1-* prop*r1' 6in2* -* -ad
alr*ad' a69*d :or i16 0&idan2* 1-ro&0- -i6 Mani:*61a1ion 5-i2- 5a6 6&78i11*d 1o 1-*
2o&r1 4ir1&all' a1 1-* 2lo6* o: oF2* -o&r6 on 23 Ma' 200$. =*1 1-* :ollo5in0
8ornin0, -* 6&dd*nl' d*2id*d 1o r*l*a6* 1-* 2ar 1o 1-* plain1i. 5i1-o&1 5ai1in0 :or
an' 2o&r1 ord*r on 1-* 8a11*r. ,uc( apparent (aste raised <uestions on (is actions and
leaves doubts as to (is intent or interest in t(e case.
*oreover, &nd*r 1-* R*4i6*d R&l*6 o: Co&r1, 1-* prop*r1' 6*iA*d &nd*r a 5ri1 o:
r*pl*4in i6 no1 1o 7* d*li4*r*d i88*dia1*l' 1o 1-* plain1i.. )(is is because a possessor
(as ever8 rig(t to be respected in its possession and ma8 not be deprived o' it 0it(out due
)(e purpose o' t(e &ve 9/: da8 period in ,ection 6, Rule 60 is to give de'endants in a replevin
case a c(ance to re<uire t(e return o' t(e propert8 b8 &ling a counterC4Dbond. Con6id*rin0
1-a1 1-*r* 5a6 no 2o&r1 ord*r 1o r*l*a6* 1-* prop*r1' 1o 1-* appli2an1Eplain1i. and
1-* 2o8plainan16 5*r* a7l* 1o r*G&ir* 1-* r*1&rn o: 1-* prop*r1' and Bl* 1-*ir
2o&n1*rH(I7ond 5i1-in 1-* B4* ;5< da' p*riod r*G&ir*d 7' 1-* R&l*6, r*6pond*n1
6-o&ld -a4* 7**n 8or* 2ir2&86p*21 in r*l*a6in0 1-* prop*r1' 1o 1-*
plain1i.Eappli2an1. B8 (astil8 deciding to release t(e seiMed propert8 to t(e plainti>Kapplicant
0it(out 0aiting 'or t(e courtNs order, respondent patentl8 abused (is aut(orit8.
Con'ormabl8, a de'endant in a replevin suit ma8 demand t(e return o' possession o' t(e
propert8 replevined b8 &ling a redeliver8 bond e7ecuted to t(e plainti> in double t(e value o'
t(e propert8 as stated in t(e plainti>Ns aFdavit 0it(in t(e period speci&ed in ,ections / and 6.
2nder ,ection 6, t(e ve(icle s(all be delivered to Elor onl8 under t(e 'ollo0ing instances:
. B' 0it(in &ve da8s a'ter t(e ta@ing o' t(e ve(icle, complainants do not ob5ect to t(e
suFcienc8 o' t(e bond or o' t(e suret8 or sureties t(ereonO
2. B' 0it(in &ve da8s a'ter t(e ta@ing o' t(e ve(icle, complainants ob5ect to t(e
suFcienc8 o' t(e bond and t(e trial court aFrms its approval o' ElorNs bond or
approves a ne0 bondO or
-. If within &ve days after the ta3ing of the vehicle, com"lainants re#uire the return of
the vehicle and their ond is ojected to and found insu/cient and they do not
forthwith &le an a""roved ond.
Bn t(e instant case, complainants dul8 complied 0it( all o' t(e re<uirements under ,ections /
and 6 'or t(e return o' t(e ve(icle. Respondent too@ possession o' t(e ve(icle on A *a8 200#.
On 20 *a8 200#, complainants &led t(eir urgent motion 'or t(e return o' t(e ve(icle and
submission o' counter4bond and, on 2 *a8 200#, t(e8 &led a motion to 0it(dra0 t(e urgent
motion and c(ange t(e same 0it( an omnibus motion. Bot( t(e urgent motion and t(e
omnibus motion 0ere &led be'ore t(e deliver8 o' t(e ve(icle to Elor and be'ore t(e e7piration
o' t(e &ve4da8 period. .ater, t(e trial court approved complainantsN counter4bond. )(us,
respondent committed an irregularit8 0(en (e (astil8 delivered t(e ve(icle to Elor.
G.R. No. 182?3% J&n* %, 201%
SPOUSES !EO AGNER and MAR"CON AGNER, %etitioners, vs.
,P" FAM"= SA/"NGS ,AN+, "NC., Respondent.
On $ebruar8 /, 200, petitioners spouses Deo ;gner and *aricon ;gner e7ecuted a
%romissor8 1ote 0it( C(attel *ortgage in 'avor o' Citimotors, Bnc. On t(e same da8, Citimotors,
Bnc. assigned all its rig(ts, title and interests in t(e %romissor8 1ote 0it( C(attel *ortgage to
;B1 ;*RO ,avings Ban@, Bnc. 9;B1 ;*RO:, 0(ic(, on *a8 -, 2002, li@e0ise assigned t(e
same to respondent B%B $amil8 ,avings Ban@, Bnc.
$or 'ailure to pa8 'our successive installments 'rom *a8 /, 2002 to ;ugust /, 2002,
respondent, t(roug( counsel, sent to petitioners a demand letter dated ;ugust 2!, 2002,
declaring t(e entire obligation as due and demandable and re<uiring to pa8 %(p/A6,66#.0#, or
surrender t(e mortgaged ve(icle immediatel8 upon receiving t(e letter.
;s t(e demand 0as
le't un(eeded, respondent &led on October #, 2002 an action 'or Replevin and Damages be'ore
t(e *anila Regional )rial Court 9R)C:.
; 0rit o' replevin 0as issued.
Despite t(is, t(e sub5ect ve(icle 0as not seiMed.
)rial on t(e
merits ensued. On ;ugust , 200/, t(e *anila R)C Br. -- ruled 'or t(e respondent and ordered
petitioners to 5ointl8 and severall8 pa8 t(e amount o' %(p/A6,66#.0# plus interest at t(e rate o'
A2L per annum 'rom ;ugust 20, 2002 until 'ull8 paid, and t(e costs o' suit.
%etitioners appealed t(e decision to t(e Court o' ;ppeals 9C;:, but t(e C; aFrmed t(e lo0er
courtNs decision and, subse<uentl8, denied t(e motion 'or reconsiderationO (ence, t(is petition.
%etitioners argue t(at respondentNs remed8 o' resorting to bot( actions o' replevin and
collection o' sum o' mone8 is contrar8 to t(e provision o' ;rticle #"#
o' t(e Civil Code and t(e
Glisco )ool *anu'acturing Corporation v. Court o' ;ppeals

)(e contention is untenable.
)(ere is no violation o' ;rticle #"# o' t(e Civil Code and t(e CourtNs decision in Glisco )ool
*anu'acturing Corporation v. Court o' ;ppeals.
Bn Glisco, petitioner=s complaint contained t(e 'ollo0ing pra8er:
4+565$O65, "lainti7s "ray that judgment e rendered as follows:
O0 1+5 $I6S1 C'8S5 O$ 'C1IO0
Ordering defendant 6olando ,antan to "ay the "lainti7 the sum of %9:,;<=.8> "lus legal
interest from the date of demand until the whole oligation is fully "aid?
O0 1+5 S5CO0D C'8S5 O$ 'C1IO0
1o forthwith issue a 4rit of 6e"levin ordering the sei@ure of the motor vehicle more "articularly
descried in "aragra"h 9 of the Com"laint, from defendant 6olando ,antan andAor defendants
6ina ,antan, John Doe, Susan Doe and other "erson or "ersons in whose "ossession the said
motor vehicle may e found, com"lete with accessories and e#ui"ment, and direct deliver
thereof to "lainti7 in accordance with law, and after due hearing to con&rm said sei@ure and
"lainti7Bs "ossession over the same?
%6'C56 CO))O0 1O ',, C'8S5S O$ 'C1IO0
D. Ordering the defendant 6olando ,antan to "ay the "lainti7 an amount e#uivalent to twentyE
&ve "ercent FG<HI of his outstanding oligation, for and as attorneyBs fees?
G. Ordering defendants to "ay the cost or e!"enses of collection, re"ossession, onding fees
and other incidental e!"enses to e "roved during the trial? and
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 60: Replevin || Castro & Boco
9. Ordering defendants to "ay the costs of suit.
%lainti7 also "rays for such further reliefs as this +onorale Court may deem just and e#uitale
under the "remises.
1he Court therein ruled:
1he remedies "rovided for in 'rt. D=8= are alternative, not cumulative. 1he e!ercise of one
ars the e!ercise of the others. 1his limitation a""lies to contracts "ur"orting to e leases of
"ersonal "ro"erty with o"tion to uy y virtue of 'rt. D=8<. 1he condition that the lessor has
de"rived the lessee of "ossession or enjoyment of the thing for the "ur"ose of a""lying 'rt.
D=8< was ful&lled in this case y the &ling y "etitioner of the com"laint for re"levin to recover
"ossession of movale "ro"erty. (y virtue of the writ of sei@ure issued y the trial court, the
de"uty sheri7 sei@ed the vehicle on 'ugust >, D:8> and therey de"rived "rivate res"ondents
of its use. 1he car was not returned to "rivate res"ondent until '"ril D>, D:8:, after two FGI
years and eight F8I months, u"on issuance y the Court of '""eals of a writ of e!ecution.
%etitioner "rayed that "rivate res"ondents e made to "ay the sum of %9:,;<=.8>, the amount
that they were su""osed to "ay as of )ay D:8>, "lus interest at the legal rate. 't the same
time, it "rayed for the issuance of a writ of re"levin or the delivery to it of the motor vehicle
2com"lete with accessories and e#ui"ment.2 In the event the car could not e delivered to
"etitioner, it was "rayed that "rivate res"ondent 6olando ,antan e made to "ay "etitioner the
amount of %>;,;;;.;;, the 2estimated actual value2 of the car, 2"lus accrued monthly rentals
thereof with interests at the rate of fourteen "ercent FD=HI "er annum until fully "aid.2 1his
"rayer of course cannot e granted, even assuming that "rivate res"ondents have defaulted in
the "ayment of their oligation. 1his led the trial court to say that "etitioner wanted to eat its
ca3e and have it too.
Bn contrast, respondent in t(is case pra8ed:
9a: Be'ore trial, and upon &ling and approval o' t(e bond, to 'ort(0it( issue a Hrit o' Replevin
ordering t(e seiMure o' t(e motor ve(icle above4described, complete 0it( all its accessories
and e<uipments, toget(er 0it( t(e Registration Certi&cate t(ereo', and direct t(e deliver8
t(ereo' to plainti> in accordance 0it( la0 and a'ter due (earing, to con&rm t(e said seiMureO
9b: Or, in t(e event t(at manual deliver8 o' t(e said motor ve(icle cannot be e>ected to render
5udgment in 'avor o' plainti> and against de'endant9s: ordering t(em to pa8 to plainti>, 5ointl8
and severall8, t(e sum o' %/A6,66#.0# plus interest andKor late pa8ment c(arges t(ereon at
t(e rate o' A2L per annum 'rom ;ugust 20, 2002 until 'ull8 paidO
9c: Bn eit(er case, to order de'endant9s: to pa8 5ointl8 and severall8:
9: t(e sum o' %2!A,"/A./# as attorne8Ns 'ees, li<uidated damages, bonding 'ees and ot(er
e7penses incurred in t(e seiMure o' t(e said motor ve(icleO and
92: t(e costs o' suit.
%lainti> 'urt(er pra8s 'or suc( ot(er relie' as t(is 6onorable Court ma8 deem 5ust and e<uitable
in t(e premises.
Compared 0it( Glisco, t(e ve(icle sub5ect matter o' t(is case 0as never recovered and
delivered to respondent despite t(e issuance o' a 0rit o' replevin. ;s t(ere 0as no seiMure t(at
transpired, it cannot be said t(at petitioners 0ere deprived o' t(e use and en5o8ment o' t(e
mortgaged ve(icle or t(at respondent pursued, commenced or concluded its actual
'oreclosure. )(e trial court, t(ere'ore, rig(t'ull8 granted t(e alternative pra8er 'or sum o'
mone8, 0(ic( is e<uivalent to t(e remed8 o' ?e7acting 'ul&llment o' t(e obligation.? Certainl8,
t(ere is no double recover8 or un5ust enric(ment
to spea@ o'.
;ll t(e 'oregoing not0it(standing, He are o' t(e opinion t(at t(e interest o' 6L per mont(
s(ould be e<uitabl8 reduced to one percent 9L: per mont( or t0elve percent 92L: per
annum, to be rec@oned 'rom *a8 6, 2002 until 'ull pa8ment and 0it( t(e remaining
outstanding balance o' t(eir car loan as o' *a8 /, 2002 as t(e base amount.
,ettled is t(e principle 0(ic( t(is Court (as aFrmed in a number o' cases t(at stipulated
interest rates o' t(ree percent 9-L: per mont( and (ig(er are e7cessive, ini<uitous,
unconscionable, and e7orbitant.
H(ile Central Ban@ Circular 1o. !0/4"2, 0(ic( too@ e>ect on
+anuar8 , !"-, e>ectivel8 removed t(e ceiling on interest rates 'or bot( secured and
unsecured loans, regardless o' maturit8, not(ing in t(e said circular could possibl8 be read as
granting carte blanc(e aut(orit8 to lenders to raise interest rates to levels 0(ic( 0ould eit(er
enslave t(eir borro0ers or lead to a (emorr(aging o' t(eir assets.
,ince t(e stipulation on t(e
interest rate is void 'or being contrar8 to morals, i' not against t(e la0, it is as i' t(ere 0as no
e7press contract on said interest rateO t(us, t(e interest rate ma8 be reduced as reason and
e<uit8 demand.