Case Digest (G.R. No. 169596)
Facts:
Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction Company and Pedro Balubal, G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks review of the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 6, 2005 dismissing petitioner Superlines Transportation Company, Inc.'s appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 61144).Superlines is a public-transportation corporation. On December 13, 1990 one of its buses swerved and crashed into the radio room of respondent PNCC while approaching the Alabang northbound exit lane. The PNCC tollway patrol (Sofronio Salvanera) and respondent Pedro Balubal, head of PNCC's traffic control and security, investigated. At the request of traffic investigator Pat. Cesar Lopera, the bus was towed to and stored in the PNCC compound for safekeeping because of lack of space at the Alabang Traffic Bureau which had custody for investigation.
Petitioner repeatedly asked PNCC to release the bus and offered to repair the radio room, but Balubal refused and demanded P40,000 or equivalent collateral; petitioner estimated damage at P10,000. Petitioner filed an action for recovery of personal property (replevin) with damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, Gumaca, Quezon, praying for recovery of possession, lost income, attorney's fees, litis expenses, and costs. Petitioner did not secure the bond for a writ of replevin and awaited final judgment.
Respondents denied wrongful detention, asserted they towed the bus at police order and would not release it without police authority, questioned petitioner's proof of ownership, and contended the bus in PNCC custody was not the same bus. Respondents counterclaimed for P40,326.54 actual damages, P50,000 exemplary damages, and P130,000 attorney's fees. By Decision dated December 9, 1997 the RTC dismissed petitioner's complaint and awarded PNCC P40,320 on its counterclaim.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed dismissal, reasoning that PNCC's custody amounted to a deposit and that custody remained with Investigator Lopera who had authority; the CA concluded the proper defendant would be the police authorities, not PNCC. Petitioner filed the present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Should the petition be dismissed for failure to comply with Section 4, Rule 45 and because it allegedly raises only questions of fact?
- Substantive: May the owner of a bus maintain an action for replevin against a depositary (PNCC and Balubal) to recover possession when the bus was towed and impounded at the police's request?
- Substantive/Remedial: May petitioner recover damages for illegal distraint against respondents without impleading the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)