Case Summary (G.R. No. 232814)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Relevant dates include: motor vehicle clearance certificate issued August 29, 2006; impounding and related events in March–April 2008; RTC judgment rendered June 30, 2014; Court of Appeals decision affirmed April 6, 2017 and motion for reconsideration denied July 5, 2017; petition for review on certiorari filed to the Supreme Court and resolved by the Supreme Court (decision date after 1990, therefore analyzed under the 1987 Constitution). The petition challenges the CA’s affirmation of the RTC judgment in Civil Case No. 2008-067.
Central Legal Instruments and Standards
Governing law and legal standards relied upon in the decisions include: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (rights against unreasonable searches and seizures); Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari) and Rule 60 (replevin procedure, Section 9) of the Rules of Court; Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972); RA 8750 (Seat Belts Use Act of 1999) and implementing LTO/MVCC evidentiary weight; and the general doctrine that public officials acting ultra vires or in bad faith may be personally liable without invoking sovereign immunity.
Factual Background — Acquisition and Registration of the Vehicle
Respondents acquired a second-hand Isuzu Wagon (chassis and engine numbers and plate number specified in the record) from Ryan Gallego at Oro Cars in Bulua, Cagayan de Oro City for P75,000.00. A PNP Motor Vehicle Clearance Certificate (MVCC) dated August 29, 2006 indicated the vehicle was not listed as wanted/stolen. A Macro-Etching Certificate issued by the regional PNP Crime Laboratory indicated the engine and chassis numbers were found to be “Not Tampered.”
Factual Background — Apprehension, Impounding, and Investigation
On March 7, 2008 respondents’ driver was stopped and apprehended by petitioners for a seat belt violation and because the vehicle’s OR and CR allegedly appeared spurious. An impounding receipt dated March 14, 2008 was issued. Petitioners later asserted the vehicle was reported stolen in 2004 per VIMS and claimed ownership by Milamdec Foundation Inc./Fr. Emeterio Barcelon, SJ based on certain dealer certifications. The vehicle was transported to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, by petitioners for further verification after the regional laboratory refused to conduct macro-etching again.
Procedural Action by Respondents — Replevin Complaint
Respondents filed a complaint for replevin in RTC seeking either immediate return of possession of the subject vehicle or, if delivery could not be effected, payment of its actual value plus interest, attorney’s fees, moral damages, litigation expenses, and costs. A Sheriff’s Return indicated the vehicle could not be seized on replevin because it had been moved to TMG Head Office at Camp Crame for further clarification of chassis and engine numbers.
Petitioners’ Defense and Motion to Dismiss
Petitioners moved to dismiss and quash the writ of replevin, asserting that the vehicle was under custodia legis as the product of an administrative seizure in the implementation of RA 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act) and therefore not subject to replevin. They argued the vehicle was listed as stolen in VIMS (reported April 19, 2004) and relied on documentation purportedly showing title in Milamdec Foundation Inc. Petitioners admitted transport of the vehicle to Camp Crame pursuant to a verbal instruction by PS/Supt. Uy after the regional crime laboratory declined to perform repeat macro-etching.
RTC Findings and Judgment
The RTC found respondents established ownership by preponderance of evidence: deed of sale, MVCC showing no listing as stolen, macro-etching certificate showing “Not Tampered,” and OR/CR in respondents’ names. The court ruled that petitioners acted in bad faith and beyond the scope of authority by refusing to release the vehicle, transporting it without consent or court order, and turning it over to Prudential Insurance instead of following up with macro-etching as represented. The RTC concluded that petitioners were not in custodia legis and were liable for wrongful impounding, ordering joint and several payment of the actual vehicle value (P475,000) plus interest, moral damages (P50,000), litigation expenses, replevin bond payment, and costs — also awarding attorney’s fees (P45,000) in the dispositive portion.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC. It reiterated that a Certificate of Registration creates a strong presumption of ownership absent competent proof of fraud or irregularity and noted the dismissal of the criminal carnapping case for insufficiency of evidence as supporting respondents’ ownership claim. The CA declined to consider a macro-etching examination allegedly showing tampering that was attached belatedly to petitioners’ brief and not presented at trial; even if considered, it found such evidence inconclusive without proof of original or alternate numbers. The CA emphasized the absence of probable cause and the delay of four years between the alleged theft and impounding, concluding that the seizure without warrant or court order violated rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The CA characterized petitioners’ actions as ultra vires, holding them personally liable for the vehicle’s value and damages.
Issue Raised to the Supreme Court
Petitioners presented two principal issues: (1) whether the CA erred in directing return of monetary value of the seized vehicle to respondents; and (2) whether the CA erred in ordering payment of moral damages. The Supreme Court evaluated these issues under the standard that factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA are generally binding absent exceptional circumstances.
Supreme Court Analysis — Ownership, Replevin, and Evidentiary Presumptions
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA and RTC that respondents proved ownership by preponderance of evidence relying on deed of sale, MVCC, macro-etching certificate (regional), and OR/CR. It reiterated the legal proposition that a CR in one’s name gives rise to a strong presumption of ownership that is rebuttable only by competent proof of fraud or irregularity. The Court noted petitioners’ admission that they learned of an alleged carnapping only after the vehicle had already been impounded, undermining any claim that the seizure had been based on prior probable cause.
Supreme Court Analysis — Constitutionally Protected Rights and Unlawful Seizure
Applying the protections of the 1987 Constitution (given the decision date post-1990), the Court emphasized respondents’ rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It found that petitioners’ seizure and subsequent transportation of the vehicle outside Mindanao without respondents’ consent or a court order, and without timely and sufficient investigation, violated those rights. The lapse of time between the alleged theft and the impounding, and the lack of immediate probable cause, were determinative in concluding that custodial status under law was not established.
Supreme Court Analysis — Ultra Vires Acts, Bad Faith, and Personal Liability
The Supreme Cou
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 232814)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated April 6, 2017 and Resolution dated July 5, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 04444-MIN.
- CA had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, Judgment dated June 30, 2014 in Civil Case No. 2008-067.
- RTC had found petitioners (PNP officers) solidarily liable to respondents for the actual value of a seized motor vehicle plus interest, moral damages, litigation expenses, replevin bond payment, and costs; included attorney’s fees in its dispositive portion.
- Supreme Court (Third Division) resolution rendered on February 3, 2021 denying the petition and affirming the CA Decision with modification deleting the award of attorney’s fees.
Parties
- Petitioners: Police Senior Superintendent Romeo Uy; Senior Police Officer I Felmandie Tatlonghari; SPO1 Michael Aycardo; SPO1 Gerry Gentallan (noted as Gentalian in some rollo parts); SPO1 Rommel Flores; and John Does.
- Respondents (plaintiffs in the replevin action): Sergio Jr. and Sales V. Jacalan.
- Case docketed as G.R. No. 232814 before the Supreme Court.
Subject of the Dispute (The Vehicle)
- Second hand Isuzu Wagon described by: Chassis No. PABT BR 54F32015320; Motor/Engine No. BD 9614; Plate Number LMD 295 (referred to as the subject vehicle).
- Respondents acquired the subject vehicle from Ryan Gallego at Oro Cars, Bulua, Cagayan de Oro City for ₱75,000.00.
- PNP Motor Vehicle Clearance Certificate (MVCC) dated August 29, 2006 indicated the vehicle “is not in the list of wanted/stolen vehicles.”
- A Macro-Etching Certificate indicated engine and chassis numbers were “Not Tampered.”
Factual Background and Chronology
- August 29, 2006: MVCC issued indicating vehicle not listed as stolen; Macro-Etching showed numbers not tampered.
- March 7, 2008: Respondents’ driver Manuel Tabornal Yarra, Jr. was driving the subject vehicle; apprehended by SPO1 Tatlonghari, SPO1 Aycardo, SPO1 Gentallan, and SPO1 Flores for driving without a seat belt and suspicion that OR and CR were spurious.
- March 14, 2008: An Impounding Receipt for the subject vehicle was issued.
- Respondents demanded release of the vehicle; petitioners refused, alleging chassis and engine numbers were tampered.
- April 9, 2008: Sheriff’s Return on service of the writ of replevin indicated the vehicle could not be seized because it had been transported to the Traffic Management Group (TMG) Head Office at Camp Crame, Quezon City for clarification and verification of chassis and engine numbers.
- Petitioners averred the vehicle was reported stolen on April 19, 2004 per Vehicular Information Management System (VIMS) validation and claimed ownership belonged to Milamdec Foundation Inc./Fr. Emeterio Barcelon, SJ based on information traced to Southern Motors Corporation.
- PNP Crime Laboratory Office Region 10, Cagayan de Oro City refused to conduct macro-etching; petitioners transported the vehicle to PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, upon verbal instruction of PS/Supt. Uy.
Respondents’ Proof of Ownership and Evidence Presented
- Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle showing purchase from Ryan Gallego.
- Official Receipt (OR) and Certificate of Registration (CR) in respondents’ names issued by LTO-Cagayan de Oro City Field Office.
- PNP MVCC dated August 29, 2006 stating vehicle not in list of wanted/stolen vehicles.
- Macro-Etching Certificate showing chassis and engine numbers “Not Tampered.”
- These items were presented at trial and considered by the RTC and CA in support of respondents’ ownership and entitlement to possession.
Petitioners’ Contentions and Evidence
- Petitioners moved to dismiss the replevin complaint and quash the writ of replevin claiming the vehicle was under custodia legis as product of administrative seizure under RA 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972).
- Claimed the vehicle had been reported stolen on April 19, 2004 (VIMS).
- Presented Certification, Invoice, Certificate of Sale, Production Number, Car Truck Invoice, and Delivery Receipt from Cebu Southern Motors, Inc., asserting ownership by Milamdec Foundation Inc./Fr. Emeterio Barcelon, SJ.
- Relied on an alleged Macro-Etching Examination from PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame (asserted tampering), but this was not presented at trial and was attached belatedly to appellants’ brief before the CA.
RTC Ruling (June 30, 2014)
- Found in favor of plaintiffs (respondents) and against defendants (petitioners).
- Ordered petitioners to pay jointly and severally:
- Actual value of the vehicle: ₱475,000.00 plus 6% interest from the date the complaint was filed.
- Attorney’s fees: ₱45,000.00 (later found to be baseless by the Supreme Court).
- Moral damages: ₱50,000.00 for humiliation and anxiety.
- Litigation expenses: ₱10,999.00 plus payment of replevin bond ₱27,302.50.
- Costs of suit.
- RTC findings relied on preponderance of evidence that respondents were legitimate owners, that PNP Crime Laboratory Office Region 10 had cleared the vehicle and refused to conduct another macro-etching, and that petitioners acted in bad faith and with malice by turning the vehicle over to Prudential Insurance Company instead of undergoing macro-etching as represented.
- RTC concluded there was no proof of tampering of chassis and engin