Case Digest (G.R. No. 91461)
Facts:
Normal Holdings and Development Corporation v. The Hon. Court of Appeals and J.R. Heavy Equipment Center, Inc., G.R. No. 91461, February 25, 1991, Supreme Court Fifth Division, Grino-Aquino, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Normal Holdings and Development Corporation (Normal) retained respondent J.R. Heavy Equipment Center, Inc. (JRHECI) in February 1984 to haul and perform complete repairs (including supply of available spare parts and labor) on certain heavy equipment. JRHECI performed the work and sent progress billings which Normal paid in installments until January 15, 1985; thereafter billings went unpaid and, as of December 4, 1985, Normal's unpaid obligations to JRHECI amounted to P1,850,073.24 despite repeated demands. JRHECI notified Normal of its intent to assert a mechanic's lien over the heavy equipment.
On December 12, 1985 Normal filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 138, Civil Case No. 12507, an action for accounting and damages, initially praying for preliminary injunction and later amended to seek a writ of replevin to recover possession of the equipment claimed to be wrongfully detained. On December 27, 1985 the trial judge issued a writ of replevin; the deputy sheriff, at JRHECI's instance, began implementing the writ that same day and continued until December 31, 1985, seizing not only the twelve (12) pieces of equipment described in the writ but also numerous component parts, spare parts and undercarriage assemblies allegedly belonging to JRHECI and other customers.
JRHECI filed a motion to quash the writ on January 6, 1986, alleging the writ was irregular and that the sheriff and Normal's representative had seized items beyond those described in the writ. After memoranda were filed, the trial court on March 18, 1987 partially granted the motion to quash and ordered Normal to return within 15 days the equipment parts not attached to the equipment described in the writ. Normal moved for reconsideration and supplemented the motion; the trial court denied reconsideration on April 3, 1989.
Normal filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on May 5, 1989, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court and raising subsidiary claims that JRHECI should have to prove non-ownership, that the replevied properties were properly described, that JRHECI dismantled the equipment, ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in partially quashing the writ of replevin?
- Must respondent JRHECI be required to prove that the items seized do not belong to petitioner Normal?
- Were the component parts and assemblies seized properly described in Normal’s amended complaint and its writ of replevin?
- Are the factual claims that JRHECI dismantled the equipment and that it waived defects i...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)