G.R. No. 72990 - People vs. Badeo

Petitioner Advent Capital and Finance Corporation (Advent) is a corporation undergoing rehabilitation.
Respondent Roland Young (Young) is Advent's former president and CEO.
The dispute concerns the possession of a 1996 Mercedes Benz E230, plate number UMN-168, registered in Advent's name but in Young's possession.

On 16 July 2001, Advent filed a petition for corporate rehabilitation in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 142.
On 27 August 2001, the rehabilitation court issued a stay order preventing enforcement of claims against Advent and its non-solidarily liable guarantors.
On 6 November 2002, the rehabilitation court approved the rehabilitation plan, listing the subject vehicle as part of Advent's assets, although Young still possessed it.

Young refused to return the vehicle despite demands.
Advent filed a replevin suit on 8 July 2003 to recover the car; the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 03-776 and assigned to Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 147.
Advent posted a replevin bond of P3,000,000 (double the car's value then) through Stronghold Insurance.
A writ of seizure was issued; Young surrendered the car to Advent, which turned it over to the rehabilitation receiver.

Young filed an Answer, asserting rights under Advent's company car plan and retirement benefits to offset the car’s book value.
Advent moved to dismiss Young's counterclaim, arguing it was unrelated and lacked jurisdiction since related claims belonged before the rehabilitation court.
Pre-trial was conducted on 2 April 2004; issues were framed.
On 28 April 2005, the trial court dismissed the replevin case without prejudice due to Advent's failure to prosecute.
The trial court dismissed Young's counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that it belonged to the rehabilitation court.

Young filed a motion for partial reconsideration on 10 June 2005; this was denied on 24 March 2006.
Young also filed an omnibus motion on 8 July 2005, praying for the vehicle’s return and damages against the replevin bond for improper seizure.
The trial court suspended resolution on the vehicle’s return and denied the motion to resolve on 5 July 2006, citing the valid issuance of the writ of replevin and ownership of Advent.

Young petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari and mandamus to annul the trial court’s orders.
The Court of Appeals held that the writ of seizure became functus officio upon dismissal, requiring the return of the vehicle to Young to restore status quo ante.
The CA ordered Advent to return the vehicle and directed the trial court to hold a hearing on damages against the replevin bond.
Advent’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 15 May 2008.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing the return of the seized vehicle to Young after dismissal of the replevin case.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine damages against the replevin bond.