SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v.

PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND PEDRO BALUBAL
519 SCRA 432 (2007), SECOND DIVISION
FACTS:
Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. (Superlines) is engaged in
the business of providing public transportation. One of its buses, while
traveling north and approaching the Alabang northbound exit lane, crashed
into the radio room of respondent Philippine National Construction
Company (PNCC). PNCCs Sofronio Salvanera, and Pedro Balubal, then
head of traffic control and security department of the South Luzon tollway,
investigated the incident. The bus was turned over to the Alabang Traffic
Bureau for its own investigation. Because of lack of adequate space, traffic
investigator Pat. Cesar Lopera requested that the bus be towed by the PNCC
patrol to its compound. Superlines made several requests for the release of
the bus but Balubal refused. Instead, Balubal demanded the sum of
P40,000.00 or a collateral with the same value for the reconstruction of the
damaged radio room.
Superlines filed a replevin suit with damages against PNCC and Balubal
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The trial court dismissed the
complaint and ordered Superlines to pay PNCC an amount of P40, 320.00,
representing actual damages to the radio room. The Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed the decision and concluded that the case should have been brought
against the police authorities.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a suit for replevin is proper.
HELD:
Contrary to PNCCs contention, the petition raises questions of law
foremost of which is whether the owner of a personal property may initiate
an action for replevin against a depositary and recover damages for illegal
distraint. In a complaint for replevin, the claimant must convincingly show
that he is either the owner or clearly entitled to the possession of the object
sought to be recovered, and that the defendant, who is in actual or legal
possession thereof, wrongfully detains the same.

In the case at bar, Superlines ownership of the bus being admitted by

PNCC, consideration of whether PNCC has been wrongfully detaining it is

in order. The bus was towed by the PNCC on the request of Lopera in
violation of constitutional right against unreasonable seizures. The seizure
and impounding of Superliness bus, on Loperas request, were
unquestionably violative of the right to be let alone by the authorities as
guaranteed by the Constitution.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court (SC) finds that it cannot pass upon
the same without impleading Lopera and any other police officer responsible
for ordering the seizure and distraint of the bus. The police authorities,
through Lopera, having turned over the bus to PNCC for safekeeping, a
contract of deposit was perfected between them and PNCC. Superlines or
the trial court motu proprio may implead as defendants the indispensable
parties Lopera and any other responsible police officers.