Rem2 Case Digests Rule 60

8/11/2019 Rem2 Case Digests Rule 60

1/9

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

G.R. No. 111080 April 5, 2000

JOSE S. OROSA and MARTHA P. OROSA,petitioners,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEAS and FCP CRE!"T CORPORAT"ON,respondents.

FACTS#

On December 6, !"#, private respondent $C% Credit Corporation led a complaint 'or replevinand 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 it( *otor and erial 1o.13B)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. e e7ecuted anddelivered to $iesta *otor ales Corp. a promissor8 note in t(e sum o' %--,"2#.00 pa8able inmont(l8 installments. )o secure pa8ment, petitioner e7ecuted a c(attel mortgage over t(esub5ect motor ve(icle in 'avor o' $iesta *otor ales Corp. On eptember 2", !"-, $iesta *otorales assigned t(e promissor8 note and c(attel mortgage to private respondent $C% CreditCorporation. )(e complaint 'urt(er alleged t(at petitioner 'ailed to pa8 part o' t(e installment(ic( 'ell due on +ul8 2", !"# as ell as t(ree 9- consecutive installment (ic( 'ell due on;ugust 2", eptember 2", and October 2", !"#. Conse4appellantand whether e!ecution "ending a""eal is "ro"erunder t(e 'acts andcircumstances o' t(is case. Conseered untold embarrassment (en t(e complaint as led against(im. ;ccording to petitioner, t(e car sub5ect o' t(is case as being used b8 (is daug(ter,married to +ose Concepcion , a scion o' a prominent 'amil8. %etitioner laments t(at (eassigned t(e car to (is daug(ter so t(at s(e could ?appro7imate it(out e


2/9


;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,vs.REG"NA M. ASTORGA,respondent.

FACTS#

Regina *. ;storga 9;storga as emplo8ed b8 respondent mart Communications,ncorporated 9*;R) on *a8 ", !!A as District ales *anager o' t(e Corporate ales*ar@eting EroupK $i7ed ervices Division 9C*EK$D. (e as receiving a mont(l8 salar8o' %--,6/0.00. ;s District ales *anager, ;storga en5o8ed additional benets, namel8, annual

per'ormance incentive eective ;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 benets it( pra8er 'or moral and e7emplar8 damagesagainst *;R) and ;nn *argaret J. antiago 9antiago.

n 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 onda Civic edan (ic( as given to (er under t(e compan8Nscar plan program, or to surrender t(e same to t(e compan8 'or proper disposition. ;storga,(oever, 'ailed and re'used to do eit(er, t(us prompting *;R) to le a suit 'or replevin it(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' 5urisdiction 9ii 'ailure to statea cause o' action 9iii litis pendentia and 9iv 'orum4s(opping. ;storga posited t(at t(e regularcourts (ave no 5urisdiction over t(e complaint because t(e sub5ect t(ereo' pertains to a benetarising 'rom an emplo8ment contract (ence, 5urisdiction over t(e same is vested in t(e labortribunal and not in regular courts.

ubse


3/9


n (asaya, Jr. v. )ilitante , t(is Court, in up(olding t(e 5urisdiction o' t(e R)C over t(e replevinsuit, e7plained:

Replevin is a possessor8 action, t(e gist o' (ic( is t(e rig(t o' possession in t(e plainti>. )(eprimar8 relie' soug(t t(erein is t(e return o' t(e propert8 in specie rong'ull8 detained b8anot(er person. t is an ordinar8 statutor8 proceeding to ad5udicate rig(ts to t(e title orpossession o' personal propert8. )(e J o't(e Regional )rial Court 9R)C o' Davao Cit8, Branc( 6.

)(e antecedent 'acts are as 'ollos:

Complainant ao 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 *+SCommercial v. oreto +ao, 'tty. 'mado Cantos, -enneth +ao and John Does ,? pending be'oret(e R)C o' Davao Cit8, Branc( 6.

On October A, 200/, +udge Renato ;. $uentes issued an Order o' eiMure against 22 motorve(icles allegedl8 oned b8 t(e complainant. On t(e strengt( o' t(e said order, ;ndres asable to seiMe to o' t(e sub5ect motor ve(icles on October A, 200/ 'our on October ", 200/,and anot(er t(ree on October !, 200/, or a total o' nine motor ve(icles.

n (is ;Fdavit4Complaint against ;ndres be'ore t(e OFce o' t(e Court ;dministrator 9OC;,ao alleged t(at ;ndres gave undue advantage to Penaida ilver in t(e implementation o' t(eorder and t(at ;ndres seiMed t(e nine motor ve(icles in an oppressive manner. ao alsoaverred t(at ;ndres as accompanied b8 unidentied armed personnel on board a militar8ve(icle (ic( as e7cessive since t(ere ere no resistance 'rom t(em. ao also discoveredt(at t(e compound (ere t(e seiMed motor ve(icles ere placed is actuall8 oned b8 ilver.

On October 2, 200/, in vie o' t(e approval o' t(e complainantNs counter4replevin bond, +udge

Gmmanuel C. Carpio ordered ;ndres to immediatel8 cease and desist 'rom 'urt(erimplementing t(e order o' seiMure, and to return t(e seiMed motor ve(icles including itsaccessories to t(eir la'ul oners.

oever, on October 2#, 200/, eig(t o' t(e nine seiMed motor ve(icles ere reported missing.n (is report, ;ndres stated t(at (e as s(oc@ed to nd t(at t(e motor ve(icles ere alread8missing (en (e inspected it on October 22, 200/. e 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(ata 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 ere still intact (en (e inspected it on October 2, 200/.

ubse


4/9


$inall8, ;ndres insisted t(at t(e guarding o' properties under custodia legisb8 policemen is notpro(ibited, but is even adopted b8 t(e court. ence, (e pra8s t(at (e be (eld not liable 'or t(eloss 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, e re'erred t(e case to G7ecutive+udge Renato ;. $uentes 'or investigation, report and recommendation.

n (is nvestigation 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 numerousirregularities in t(e implementation o' t(e rit o' replevinKorder o' seiMure and a'ter pointingout several instances (ere ;ndres lac@ed due diligence, +udge $uentes recommended t(at;ndres be suspended 'rom oFce.

)(e OC; disagreed it( t(e observations o' +udge $uentes. t recommended t(at ;ndres be(eld liable onl8 'or simple neglect o' dut8 and be suspended 'or one 9 mont( and one 9 da8.

"SSUE#

H(et(er (eri> ;ndres is guilt8 o' gross negligence in t(e per'ormance o' (is dut8.

HE!#

Qes. He adopt t(e recommendation o' t(e investigating 5udge.

Being an oFcer o' t(e court, ;ndres must be aare t(at t(ere are ell4dened steps providedin t(e Rules o' Court regarding t(e proper implementation o' a rit o' replevin andKor an ordero' seiMure. )(e Rules, li@eise, is e7plicit on t(e dut8 o' t(e s(eri> in its implementation. Tor*api&la* -a 6-o&ld 7* oon 9nol*d* o 6-*ri6, -* p*rin*n pro4i6ion6o: R&l* 30, o: -* R&l*6 o: Co&r r*ardin -* !&' o: -* 6-*ri ;S*ion $< and

di6po6iion o: prop*r' 7' 6-*ri ;S*ion 3ord to err it(out a>ecting adversel8 t(e proper dispensation o' 5ustice. (eri>s pla8 animportant role in t(e administration o' 5ustice and as agents o' t(e la, (ig( standards o'per'ormance are e7pected o' t(em. ence, (is 'ailure to return t(e motor ve(icles at t(e time(en its return as still 'easible constitutes anot(er instance o' neglect o' dut8.

$i't(, as 'ound b8 t(e OC;, e agree t(at ;ndres also disregarded t(e provisions o' Rule # o't(e Rules o' Court it( regard to pa8ment o' e7penses.

n vie o' t(e 'oregoing, t(ere is no doubt t(at ;ndres 'ailed to live up to t(e standardsre to t(e propert8. H(eret(ere is suc( a


5/9


must at all times conduct t(emselves it( 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 it( an8 o' t(e parties to a case to obtain a 'avorable 5udgment orimmediate e7ecution. )(e s(eri> is at t(e 'ront line as representative o' t(e 5udiciar8 and b8 (isact (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 andis SUSPEN!E!'or one 9 8ear and si7 96 mont(s it(out pa8. e is also(ereb8 >ARNE! t(at a repetition o' t(e same or similar o>enses in t(e 'uture s(all be dealtit( more severel8.

G.R. No. 1358?5 J&n* 5, 200?

TER=NGRACE R"/ERA, P*iion*r,46.FORENC"O . /ARGAS, R*6pond*n.

FACTS#

On $ebruar8 2#, 200-, respondent $lorencio Jargas 9Jargas led a complaint against petitionerand 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 )K roc@ crus(ing plant located in aria8a, SueMon. n (is

complaint and aFdavit, Jargas claims oners(ip o' t(e said e


6/9


(oever, t(at a motion to , upon receipt o' t(e rit o' replevin and prior to t(e ta@ing o' t(epropert8, must serve a cop8 t(ereo' to t(e adverse part8 9petitioner, in t(is case toget(er it(t(e application, t(e aFdavit o' merit, and t(e replevin bond. )(e reasons are simple, i.e., toprovide proper notice to t(e adverse part8 t(at (is propert8 is being seiMed in accordance it(t(e courtNs order upon application b8 t(e ot(er part8, and ultimatel8 to allo t(e adverse part8to ta@e t(e proper remed8 conse being bot( unla'ul and unconstitutional.

On *a8 ", 200-, or nine 9! da8s a'ter t(e rit as served on t(e securit8 guard, petitionerled an anser to t(e complaint accompanied b8 a pra8er 'or t(e approval o' (er redeliver8bond. )(e R)C, (oever, denied t(e redeliver8 bond 'or (aving been led be8ond t(e ve4da8mandator8 period prescribed in ections / and 6 o' Rule 60. But since t(e rit as invalidl8served, petitioner is correct in contending t(at t(ere is no rec@oning point 'rom (ic( t(emandator8 ve4da8 period s(all commence to run.

)(e trial court is reminded t(at not onl8 s(ould t(e rit or order o' replevin compl8 it( all t(ereective: i.e. it s(ould be directed to t(e

oFcer (o is aut(oriMed to serve it and it s(ould be served upon t(e person (o not onl8 (ast(e possession or custod8 o' t(e propert8 involved but (o is also a part8 or agent o' a part8to t(e action. Conse seiMed t(e to ve(icles and delivered t(em to t(e possession o' 3aren Eo.

n (is ;nsers, 1avarro alleged as a special aFrmative de'ense t(at t(e to complaints statedno cause o' action, since 3aren Eo as not a part8 to t(e ease ;greements it( Option to%urc(ase 9collectivel8, t(e lease agreements V t(e actionable documents on (ic( t(e

complaints ere based.On 1avarroNs motion, bot( cases ere dul8 consolidated on December -, !!!.

n its *a8 ", 2000 order, t(e R)C dismissed t(e case on t(e ground t(at t(e complaints did notstate a cause o' action.

n response to t(e motion 'or reconsideration 3aren Eo led dated *a8 26, 2000, t(e R)Cissued anot(er order dated +ul8 26, 2000 setting aside t(e order o' dismissal. ;cting on t(epresumption t(at Elenn EoNs leasing business is a con5ugal propert8, t(e R)C (eld t(at 3arenEo (ad suFcient interest in (is leasing business to le t(e action against 1avarro. oever,t(e R)C (eld t(at 3aren Eo s(ould (ave included (er (usband, Elenn Eo, in t(e complaintbased on ection #, Rule - o' t(e Rules o' Court 9Rules. )(us, t(e loer court ordered 3aren Eoto 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 apetition 'or certiorari it( t(e C;, essentiall8 contending t(at t(e R)C committed grave abuseo' discretion (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 (ic( 'ailed to state a cause o' action could not be converted into one it( a causeo' 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 tot(e ling o' t(e present petition.

"SSUE#

H(et(er prior demand is re


7/9


ec. 2. ;Fdavit and bond.

)(e applicant must s(o b8 (is on aFdavit or t(at o' some ot(er person (o personall8@nos t(e 'acts:

9a )(at t(e applian i6 -* on*r o: -* prop*r'claimed, particularl8describing it, or i6 *nil*d o -* po66*66iont(ereo'

9b )(at t(e propert8 is ron:&ll' d*ain*d 7' -* ad4*r6* par' , alleging t(ecause o' detention t(ereo' according to t(e best o' (is @noledge, in'ormation, andbelie'

9c )(at t(e propert8 (as not been distrained or ta@en 'or a ta7 assessment or a nepursuant to la, or seiMed under a rit o' e7ecution or preliminar8 attac(ment, orot(erise placed under custodialegis, or i' so seiMed, t(at it is e7empt 'rom suc(seiMure or custod8 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(epropert8 as stated in t(e aFdavit a'orementioned, 'or t(e return o' t(e propert8 to t(e adversepart8 i' suc( return be ad5udged, and 'or t(e pa8ment to t(e adverse part8 o' suc( sum as (ema8 recover 'rom t(e applicant in t(e action.

He see not(ing in t(ese provisions (ic( re asper CourtK(eri>Ns Receipt (ereto attac(ed.

"SSUE#

H(et(er or not t(e respondent erred (en (e delivered t(e ve(icle to Elor it(out aiting 'ort(e trial courtNs instructions on t(e matter.

HE!#


8/9


Qes.

n t(is case, plainti>Kapplicant (ad posted a replevin bond dul8 approved b8 t(e court.1evert(eless, one o' t(e elements upon (ic( t(e propert8 sub5ect o' replevin ma8 bedelivered to t(e plainti>Kapplicant is lac@ing. )(ere appears to be no court order issued 8et 'ort(e release o' t(e a'orementioned propert8 to t(e plainti>Kapplicant.)(e order dated 2 *a8200# issued b8 t(e court onl8 directed respondent to ta@e into (is custod8 t(e sub5ect motorve(icle. $urt(er, r*6pond*n Bl*d a ani:*6aion 6**9in &idan* :ro -* o&r on-* di6po6al o: -* 6*i*d prop*r'. H*n*, r*6pond*n6 D&6iBaion -a -*r*l*a6* o: -* 6*i*d prop*r' o -* plainiapplian :ollo6 a6 a a*r o: o&r6*7*a&6* -* applianplaini -ad alr*ad' Bl*d a r*pl*4in 7ond o an6*r :or an'

daa* -a a' 7* 6&*r*d 7' oplainan6 a' no 7* i4*n *i-.t must be stressed t(at t(e prerogatives o' (eri>s do not give t(em an8 discretion todetermine (o among t(e parties is entitled to possession o' t(e sub5ect propert8. T-*appropria* o&r6* o: aion 6-o&ld -a4* 7**n :or r*6pond*n o ai :or -*in6r&ion6 o: -* o&r a6 o -o -* ill r*l*a6* -* prop*r' 6in* -* -adalr*ad' a69*d :or i6 &idan* -ro&- -i6 Mani:*6aion -i- a6 6&7i*d o -*o&r 4ir&all' a -* lo6* o: o* -o&r6 on 23 Ma' 200$. =* -* :olloinornin, -* 6&dd*nl' d*id*d o r*l*a6* -* ar o -* plaini i-o& aiin :oran' o&r ord*r on -* a*r. uc( apparent (aste raised in double t(e value o't(e propert8 as stated in t(e plainti>Ns aFdavit it(in t(e period specied in ections / and 6.

nder ection 6, t(e ve(icle s(all be delivered to Elor onl8 under t(e 'olloing instances:

. ' it(in ve da8s a'ter t(e ta@ing o' t(e ve(icle, complainants do not ob5ect to t(esuFcienc8 o' t(e bond or o' t(e suret8 or sureties t(ereon

2. ' it(in ve da8s a'ter t(e ta@ing o' t(e ve(icle, complainants ob5ect to t(esuFcienc8 o' t(e bond and t(e trial court aFrms its approval o' ElorNs bond orapproves a ne bond or

-. If within &ve days after the ta3ing of the vehicle, com"lainants re#uire the return ofthe vehicle and their ond is ojected to and found insu/cient and they do notforthwith &le an a""roved ond.

n t(e instant case, complainants dul8 complied it( all o' t(e re


9/9


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#uitaleunder the "remises.G

1he Court therein ruled:

1he remedies "rovided for in 'rt. =8= are alternative, not cumulative. 1he e!ercise of onears 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. =8, 8> and therey de"rived "rivate res"ondentsof its use. 1he car was not returned to "rivate res"ondent until '"ril >, 8, after two FG

years and eight F8 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,;, the amountthat they were su""osed to "ay as of )ay 8>, "lus interest at the legal rate. 't the sametime, it "rayed for the issuance of a writ of re"levin or the delivery to it of the motor vehicle2com"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 theamount of %>;,;;;.;;, the 2estimated actual value2 of the car, 2"lus accrued monthly rentalsthereof with interests at the rate of fourteen "ercent F=H "er annum until fully "aid.2 1his

"rayer of course cannot e granted, even assuming that "rivate res"ondents have defaulted inthe "ayment of their oligation. 1his led the trial court to say that "etitioner wanted to eat itsca3e and have it too.G8

n contrast, respondent in t(is case pra8ed:

9a Be'ore trial, and upon ling and approval o' t(e bond, to 'ort(it( issue a Hrit o' Replevin

ordering t(e seiMure o' t(e motor ve(icle above4described, complete it( all its accessoriesand e in accordance it( la and a'ter due (earing, to conrm t(e said seiMure

9b Or, in t(e event t(at manual deliver8 o' t(e said motor ve(icle cannot be e>ected to render5udgment in 'avor o' plainti> and against de'endant9s ordering t(em to pa8 to plainti>, 5ointl8and severall8, t(e sum o' %/A6,66#.0# plus interest andKor late pa8ment c(arges t(ereon att(e rate o' A2L per annum 'rom ;ugust 20, 2002 until 'ull8 paid

9c n eit(er case, to order de'endant9s to pa8 5ointl8 and severall8:

9 t(e sum o' %2!A,"/A./# as attorne8Ns 'ees, li

Documents

Rem2 Case Digests Rule 60