G.R. No. 193426 - Subic Bay Legend Resorts and CasiNo. Inc. vs. Ferdez

Petitioner Subic Bay Legend Resorts and Casinos, Inc. (Legenda) operates a hotel‐casino in Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
Respondent Bernard C. Fernandez filed Civil Case No. 237-0-97 against Legenda for recovery of casino chips and damages.

On June 6, 1997, Ludwin Fernandez changed US$5,000 in large-denomination chips into smaller ones, won US$200, then redeemed US$7,200. CCTV footage noted irregular play.
On June 13, 1997, Ludwin and his brother Deoven visited the casino, lost US$100, attempted to cash out US$6,000 and US$5,900 respectively, whereupon Legenda security froze their transactions, detained them for about seven hours without food or sleep, coerced a joint affidavit implicating an employee (Michael Cabrera) as the chip source, and confiscated the chips.

On July 1, 1997, respondent sued for return of US$5,900 worth of chips (or peso equivalent), moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
Legenda answered, counterclaimed P1 million each for moral and exemplary damages plus P500,000 attorney’s fees, alleging the chips were stolen by Cabrera and voluntarily surrendered by the brothers.

The RTC found in favor of respondent, ordering Legenda to return US$5,900 worth of chips (or peso equivalent at P38/USD), pay P30,000 attorney’s fees, and costs.
The court applied Article 559 of the Civil Code presuming a possessor in good faith is the owner, noting petitioner failed to prove theft or lawful deprivation.

The CA affirmed the RTC, upholding the Article 559 presumption, and found respondent had title as payer for services.
The CA ruled the brothers’ statements were inadmissible due to duress and constitutional violations during detention, and that petitioner acted in bad faith, justifying attorney’s fees awarded.

Whether the recanted statements of Ludwin and Deoven Fernandez have probative value.
Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of ownership under Article 559.
Whether the evidence preponderates in favor of respondent.
Whether attorney’s fees and costs should have been awarded to respondent.