Case Digest (G.R. No. 88938)
Facts:
La Tondena Distillers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Natividad Adduru Santillan, Judge, Branch 38, RTC, Manila, Deputy Sheriff Regio Ruefa and Tee Chin Ho, G.R. No. 88938, June 08, 1992, Supreme Court Second Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.The case arose from a replevin with damages action filed by La Tondena Distillers, Inc. in the Regional Trial Court (Branch 38, Manila) against a person named “Te Tien Ho” to recover 350 c.c. white flint bottles bearing the blown-in marks “La Tondena, Inc.” and “Ginebra San Miguel.” La Tondena alleged the bottles were registered under Republic Act No. 623, as amended by R.A. 5700, and sought the issuance of a writ of delivery upon posting of a bond. The complaint was verified and docketed as Civil Case No. 89-47768 before Judge Natividad G. Adduru-Santillan.
Upon La Tondena’s posting of a P40,000 replevin bond, the sheriff executed a writ and on February 22, 1989 seized 20,250 bottles at premises identified as No. 1105 Estrada St., Singalong, Manila; the sheriff’s receipt described the property as seized from “Te Tien Ho,” but the person who signed as witness/“defendant” on the receipt was Tee Chin Ho, a junk-shop owner at 1105 Estrada St. No one filed the counter-bond or objected within the five-day period prescribed by Rule 60, so the sheriff delivered the seized bottles to La Tondena on March 3, 1989.
On March 1, 1989 an individual identifying himself as Tee Chin Ho filed an “Answer (with preliminary injunction and compulsory counterclaim)” but styled it as an application to intervene, asserting (a) that purchases of La Tondena’s beverage included the bottle so ownership had passed to purchasers, (b) that the seized bottles had been taken from him (at 1105 Estrada St.), and (c) that La Tondena had previously caused a police seizure of other bottles in October 1988 (annexed receipts claimed some 21,600 bottles). He sought injunctions, restoration of possession, and large damages.
The trial judge set the injunction hearing but issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo and later, on April 7, 1989, granted leave to intervene and ordered issuance of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunctions (to be effective upon the intervenor’s posting of a P45,000 bond), finding among other things that the replevin writ addressed only the person named in the complaint (Te Tien Ho at 1005 Estrada St.) and that intervenor Tee Chin Ho was presumed owner under the Civil Code and protected by due process. By April 11, 1989 the court ordered return of 41,850 bottles (the 20,250 seized pursuant to the replevin writ plus those alleged seized earlier by police).
La Tondena filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 17384) challenging the trial court’s orders and seeking injunctive relief; the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order but ultimately dism...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in admitting the intervention of Tee Chin Ho and issuing preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunctions?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in dismissing La Tondena’s petition for certiorari and refusing to correct the trial court’s order?
- Was the intervention procedure used by Tee Chin Ho proper to vindicate his claimed interest in bottles seized both by the sheriff and earlier by the Manila Police, or should other remedies under Rule 60 have applied?
- Did the trial court err in ordering return of bottles allegedly seized earlier by the Manila Police and in effectively deciding the merits in a provisional-relief proceeding?
- Could La Tondena have amended its complaint to correct ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)