Case Summary (G.R. No. 73317)
Facts Underlying the Replevin Action
From 1982 to 1984 the Morante spouses acquired and used two Isuzu cargo trucks registered in Yang’s name. On January 3, 1985, Yang had the trucks moved from their parking at the Coca-Cola Plant in General Santos City to Yaphockun’s warehouse. Despite demands, Yang refused their release.
Replevin Proceedings and Bonds
The Morantes sought immediate possession via a writ of replevin, posting a ₱560,000 bond secured by Milagros Morante and Attorney Bayani Calonzo, whose sworn affidavits of solvency accompanied the bond. The sheriff executed the seizure on January 7. Yaphockun filed his own ₱560,000 counter‐bond on January 10; the Morantes amended their complaint on January 13 to drop him and opposed his bond. On January 18 the court found Yaphockun lacked standing as a nominal defendant and released the trucks to the Morantes.
Yang’s Belated Counter‐Bond and Petition
Yang sought a 15-day extension to answer the amended complaint (granted January 25) and filed his counter‐bond the same day. The court rejected it as filed beyond the statutory period. Yang then filed the present petition for certiorari.
Issue: Sufficiency of the Replevin Bond
Yang argued the Morantes’ bond was unsecured by cash or property. The court held that a bond is a written undertaking, and the affidavits of solvency effectively secured it. The inclusion of a third‐party surety (Atty. Calonzo) strengthened recourse rights, and the bond’s language substantially satisfied Rule 60, Section 2.
Issue: Standing of Yaphockun’s Counter‐Bond
Yang contended Yaphockun was improperly excluded to defeat his right to reclaim the trucks. The court explained that complainants may amend to drop any defendant who has not yet filed a responsive pleading, and the Morantes acted within their rights. A party with no pending liability in the complaint cannot maintain a counter‐bond.
Issue: Timeliness of Yang’s Counter‐Bond
Under Rule 60, Sections 5 and 6, a defendant must file a redelivery bond “within five days after the taking of t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 73317)
Facts
- Spouses Ricardo and Milagros Morante acquired actual possession of two Isuzu cargo trucks between 1982 and 1984, though the vehicles were registered in the name of Thomas Yang, their business treasurer.
- On January 3, 1985, Yang removed the trucks from their parking place at the Coca-Cola Plant in General Santos City and delivered them to the warehouse of Manuel Yaphockun, denying the Morantes’ repeated demands for return.
- On January 4, 1985, the Morantes filed a replevin action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, General Santos City, and posted a P560,000 bond executed by Milagros Morante and Atty. Bayani Calonzo.
- The RTC issued a writ of seizure on January 7, 1985; the South Cotabato sheriff took custody of the trucks the same day.
- On January 10, 1985, Yaphockun, impleaded as nominal defendant, filed a counter-replevin bond (P560,000) and sought repossession; the Morantes opposed, and on January 13 amended their complaint dropping Yaphockun.
- On January 18, 1985, Judge Valdez disapproved Yaphockun’s bond and ordered delivery of the trucks to the Morantes.
- Yang sought a 15-day extension to answer on January 21 and filed his own counter-replevin bond on January 25, which the RTC rejected as filed out of time.
Procedural Course
- Yang petitioned the Supreme Court by certiorari to annul the RTC orders of January 7, January 18, and February 28, 1985.
- The petition was initially denied due course for tardiness but on reconsideration was treated as a Rule 65 certiorari petition and given due course on February 8, 1988.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- The RTC gravely abused its discretion in approving the Morantes’ replevin bond, as it lacked tangible security (cash, property or surety) and was merely an undertaking to pay P560,000.
- The bond was defective because only Milagros Morante (and not her husband) e