Case Summary (G.R. No. 193426)
Trial Court Ruling
The Olongapo RTC found in favor of respondent, holding that:
• Respondent was presumptive owner under Art. 559, Civil Code.
• Petitioner failed to prove theft or establish a legitimate claim to the chips; recanted confessions lacked probative value.
• No criminal charges were filed against Cabrera or the brothers.
Judgment: return US$5,900 chips (or peso equivalent at ₱38/USD), attorney’s fees of ₱30,000, and costs.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA affirmed the RTC, ruling that:
• Article 559 presumption favored respondent’s ownership.
• Respondent’s ownership claim based on service payment to him was credible; he could lawfully transfer chips to his brothers.
• Petitioner failed to prove theft, having not filed any criminal case.
• Detention and interrogation by Legenda security violated constitutional rights (due process, right to counsel, prohibition of duress).
• Bad faith by petitioner justified award of attorney’s fees (₱30,000).
Issues on Review
Petitioner alleges the CA erred in:
a) Discounting recanted statements of Ludwin and Deoven;
b) Finding circumstantial evidence insufficient to rebut presumption of ownership;
c) Concluding evidence favored respondent;
d) Awarding attorney’s fees and costs.
Petitioner’s Arguments
• Joint affidavit implicating Cabrera demonstrates chips were stolen from the casino.
• Recantations are unreliable and should be discredited.
• Brothers’ claimed purpose to play is implausible; true intent was encashment of stolen chips.
• No duress attended interrogation; award of attorney’s fees is unwarranted for a baseless suit.
Respondent’s Arguments
• Petitioner failed to carry its burden of proving theft or unlawful deprivation.
• Article 559’s presumption of ownership remains unrebutted.
• Petition raises factual issues not subject to certiorari review.
• Award of attorney’s fees was appropriate given petitioner’s bad faith.
Supreme Court Ruling
• Petition for review denied. Factual findings of RTC and CA are binding; SC does not re-appraise eviden
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 193426)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court assailing:
- April 27, 2010 Decision and August 24, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91758
- These affirmed the May 17, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, Branch 74, in Civil Case No. 237-0-97
- Trial court rendered judgment ordering defendant to return casino chips and pay attorney’s fees and costs
- Court of Appeals upheld trial court on all material points
- Supreme Court resolution dated September 29, 2014 denies the petition and affirms the CA decisions
Factual Antecedents
- Petitioner is a Philippine corporation operating Legenda Hotel and Casino in the Subic Bay Freeport Zone
- Respondent filed Civil Case No. 237-0-97 for recovery of casino chips and damages
- On June 6, 1997, respondent’s brother Ludwin exchanged and won chips at Legenda, drawing surveillance attention
- On June 13, 1997, Ludwin and brother Deoven played one round of baccarat, lost $100, then attempted to cash out $6,000 worth of chips
- Casino security froze the transaction, escorted the brothers to private rooms, and detained them for about seven hours without food or sleep
- Under threat of estafa charges and until they named a source, the brothers signed a joint statement implicating employee Michael Cabrera as the supplier of chips; they later recanted
Claims and Counterclaims
- Respondent’s Complaint:
- Chips worth US$5,900 allegedly belonged to him and were unlawfully confiscated
- Prayers: return of chips, moral damages ₱50,000, exemplary damages ₱50,000, attorney’s fees ₱30,000, litigation expenses ₱20,000
- Petitioner’s Answer and Counterclaim:
- Alleged brothers voluntarily implicated Cabrera, chips were stolen property, rightfully retained by casino
- Counterclaim for moral damages ₱1,000,000, exemplary damages ₱1,000,000, attorney’s fees and expenses ₱500,000
- Respondent’s Answer to Counterclaim:
- Denied liability to petitioner’s damages claim
Trial Court Ruling
- Decision dated May 17, 2006:
- Found respondent’s ownership of chips established; presumption under Article 559 CC favoring possess