Case Summary (G.R. No. 113447)
Petitioner’s Principal Allegations
Yang contended that: (1) the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion by approving the plaintiffs’ replevin bond because it lacked tangible security (cash, property, or surety other than the obligors themselves); (2) the plaintiffs’ bond was defective because it was signed only by Milagros Morante (and Atty. Calonzo) while Ricardo Morante did not sign, and because it did not expressly state the condition to return property if the plaintiffs were not entitled to it; and (3) the trial judge erred in rejecting his counter‑replevin bond as filed out of time.
Respondents’ Actions Below
On 4 January 1985 the Morante spouses filed a complaint for replevin to recover possession of two Isuzu cargo trucks which they alleged they had used and possessed from 1982–1984, though the trucks were registered in Yang’s name. A writ of replevin was applied for and a replevin bond of P560,000.00 was executed by Milagros Morante and Atty. Bayani L. Calonzo. The sheriff took custody pursuant to the replevin order. On 10 January 1985 Manuel Yaphockun filed a motion and posted a counter‑bond; the Morantes amended their complaint on 13 January 1985 to drop Yaphockun; the trial judge disapproved Yaphockun’s counter‑bond (18 January 1985) and ordered delivery to the Morantes; Yang later moved for extension and filed a counter‑bond on 25 January 1985 which was rejected by the trial court for being untimely (order of 28 February 1985).
Key Dates (procedural)
- Complaint filed by Morantes: 4 January 1985.
- Sheriff took custody pursuant to replevin order: 7 January 1985.
- Yaphockun’s counter‑bond filed: 10 January 1985.
- Morantes’ amended complaint dropping Yaphockun: 13 January 1985.
- Trial court order disapproving Yaphockun’s bond and directing delivery to Morantes: 18 January 1985.
- Yang’s motion for extension: 21 January 1985; Yang’s counter‑bond filed: 25 January 1985.
- Trial court order rejecting Yang’s counter‑bond as untimely: 28 February 1985.
- Supreme Court resolution and final disposition in certiorari.
Applicable Law and Procedural Rules
The decision analyzes and applies the Revised Rules of Court provisions governing replevin: Rule 60 (Sections 2, 5 and 6) concerning the form and conditions of replevin and redelivery bonds; Rule 10, Section 2 on amendment/striking of parties; and Rule 65 as the appropriate vehicle for certiorari review of interlocutory orders. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the operative constitution for decisions rendered in the period after its promulgation.
Nature of Relief Sought in the Supreme Court
Petitioner sought certiorari to annul three interlocutory trial-court orders: (a) approval of plaintiffs’ replevin bond and issuance of writ of seizure (7 January 1985), (b) disapproval of Yaphockun’s counter‑bond and order releasing the trucks to plaintiffs (18 January 1985), and (c) rejection of Yang’s counter‑replevin bond as untimely (28 February 1985). The petition alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Court’s Treatment of What Constitutes a ‘Bond’
The Court reiterated that a bond is an undertaking in writing to pay a sum upon specified conditions and that while bonds are commonly secured by tangible assets or sureties, it is not indispensably required that tangible security be deposited. A sworn affidavit of justification fixing the solvency and capacity of the obligors can effectively secure a bond. The sufficiency of a bond is addressed to the trial court’s sound discretion because that court is better positioned to appraise the sureties’ financial standing.
Analysis of the Plaintiffs’ Replevin Bond
The plaintiffs’ bond was supported by an Affidavit of Justification in which Milagros Morante and Atty. Bayani L. Calonzo each swore to being house‑holders or free‑holders and declared net worth in excess of the bond amount. The Court found this affidavit effective to secure the bond. The inclusion of a third‑party surety (Atty. Calonzo, not a party to the litigation) further strengthened the plaintiff’s security and afforded the defendant recourse against a non‑party. Petitioner never challenged the financial capacity of these sureties below; given the trial court’s discretion and factual vantage, the approval of the replevin bond did not amount to grave abuse.
Other Defects Alleged in the Replevin Bond
The Court rejected objections that Ricardo Morante’s failure to sign the bond and the bond’s omission of an express clause “conditioned for the return of the property” were fatal. The absence of Ricardo’s signature did not impair validity because another competent surety had signed. The bond’s language (undertaking to pay costs and damages “if the court shall finally adjudge that the plaintiffs were not entitled thereto”) substantially complied with Section 2, Rule 60; further, the statutory conditions of Rule 60 are read into a bond and will be imported to define the sureties’ liability even if not verbatim in the instrument.
Character of Replevin and Entitlement to Possession
The Court emphasized that replevin is a possessory remedy: the applicant need not hold legal title but must be “entitled to the possession” at the time of application (Section 2, Rule 60). Thus plaintiffs’ lack of registered ownership was not a bar to issuance of a writ of replevin where they asserted and sought to vindicate possessory entitlement.
Dropping of Yaphockun as Party‑Defendant
The Court held that plaintiffs have the procedural right to exclude or strike out a previously impleaded party for their convenience, at their own peril, provided no responsive pleading imposing leave requirements had been filed by that party. Although a person in actual or constructive possession of the goods normally should be impleaded, the plaintiffs’ decision to drop Yaphockun was within their rights, and the trial court’s disapproval of Yaphockun’s counter‑bond was correct because, once dropped, he lacked the personality to litigate in that action.
Timeliness Requirement for Filing a Counter‑Replevin (Redelivery) Bond
Sections 5 and 6, Rule 60 prescribe mandatory periods: a defendant may require return of property at any time before delivery to plaintiff (Sec. 5), and must file a redelivery bond within five (5) days after the taking of the property by the officer (Sec. 6), unless he objects to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s bond. These periods are mandatory; approval of a counter‑bond filed beyond these statutory periods constitutes excess of jurisdiction.
Application of the Timeliness Rule to Yang’s Bond
Th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 113447)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported in 257 Phil. 990, Third Division; G.R. No. 73317; decided August 31, 1989. Decision written by Justice Feliciano.
- Petition for Certiorari (erroneously captioned as petition for review on certiorari and initially denied due course on April 14, 1986) sought annulment and setting aside of three trial-court orders dated 7 January 1985, 18 January 1985 and 28 February 1985 of Judge Marcelino R. Valdez, Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, Branch 22.
- The petition was ultimately given due course on reconsideration and treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court because only interlocutory orders were involved.
- Relief sought: annulment of orders that (1) approved a replevin bond posted by respondents (order of 7 Jan. 1985), (2) denied a counter-replevin bond filed by Manuel Yaphockun (order of 18 Jan. 1985), and (3) rejected petitioner Thomas Yang's counter-replevin bond as filed out of time (order of 28 Feb. 1985).
- Supreme Court disposition: Resolution of 8 February 1988 granting due course was withdrawn; petition for certiorari was DENIED for lack of merit; the three assailed orders of Judge Valdez dated 7 January 1985, 18 January 1985 and 28 February 1985 were AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concurred.
Facts as Alleged in the Complaint and Record Events
- On 4 January 1985, spouses Ricardo and Milagros Morante filed suit in the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City against Thomas Yang and Manuel Yaphockun to recover possession of two Isuzu cargo trucks.
- The Morante spouses alleged actual use and possession of the two trucks, acquired during 1982–1984; the trucks were registered in petitioner Thomas Yang's name, who was Treasurer in their corn buying-and-selling business.
- The complaint alleged that on the morning of 3 January 1985 Thomas Yang had the trucks taken from where they were parked in front of the Coca‑Cola Plant in General Santos City to the warehouse of Manuel Yaphockun, where they were thereafter held, and that Yang refused to release the trucks despite repeated demands.
- To obtain immediate possession, the Morante spouses applied for a writ of replevin and posted a replevin bond of P560,000.00 executed by Milagros Morante and Atty. Bayani Calonzo (respondents’ counsel).
- On 7 January 1985 the trial judge issued an order of seizure directing the Provincial Sheriff of South Cotabato to take immediate possession and custody of the vehicles; the Sheriff carried out the order.
- On 10 January 1985 defendant Manuel Yaphockun filed a motion seeking repossession and posted a counter-bond of P560,000.00 executed by himself and Narciso Mirabueno.
- The trial court required respondents to comment on Yaphockun’s counter-bond. The Morantes amended their complaint on 13 January 1985 by dropping Manuel Yaphockun as party-defendant. On 14 January 1985 respondents opposed Yaphockun’s counter-bond, asserting Yaphockun was merely a nominal defendant and had no standing.
- By order dated 18 January 1985 the trial judge disapproved Yaphockun’s counter-bond because he had been dropped as a defendant and accordingly lacked personality to litigate in the replevin suit; the court ordered immediate release and delivery of the trucks to the Morantes.
- On 21 January 1985 petitioner Yang moved for a 15‑day extension to file an answer to the complaint. On 25 January 1985 petitioner filed a counter-bond in the amount of P560,000.00, which the trial judge rejected as filed out of time.
- The trial court’s detailed reasoning about the timeliness of counter-bonds and applicable periods is set out in its 28 February 1985 order (excerpted and summarized in the record).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in:
- Approving the replevin bond posted by the Morante spouses (alleged defects: bond was merely an undertaking without tangible security; bond filed by only one of the two spouses; bondsmen did not expressly undertake to return the trucks if petitioner was adjudged lawful owner).
- Rejecting petitioner Yang’s counter‑replevin (redelivery) bond as filed out of time, thereby denying Yang the right to require return of the property.
Petitioner’s Principal Contentions
- The replevin bond approved by the trial judge was defective because:
- It was merely an undertaking by bondsmen Milagros Morante and Atty. Calonzo to pay P560,000.00 and did not place tangible security (cash, property or surety) at the court’s disposal.
- Only one of the two private respondents (Milagros, not Ricardo) executed the bond, and the bond failed to undertake expressly to return the cargo trucks to petitioner if he were adjudged lawful owner.
- Petitioner further contended that the writ of replevin should not have been issued because the Morantes were not registered owners of the trucks.
- Petitioner argued his counter-bond (filed 25 January 1985) was not out of time as he received summons only on 25 January 1985 and therefore timely filed his counter-replevin bond.
Trial Court Orders and Rationale (7 Jan., 18 Jan., and 28 Feb. 1985)
- Order of 7 January 1985:
- Issued writ of seizure directing the Provincial Sheriff to take immediate possession and custody of the two trucks; Sheriff executed the order.
- Approved the replevin bond of P560,000.00 posted by Milagros Morante and Atty. Bayani L. Calonzo.
- Order of 18 January 1985:
- Disapproved the counter-bond filed by Manuel Yaphockun because the Morantes had dropped Yaphockun as party-defendant (on 13 January 1985), leaving him without personality to litigate in the replevin suit.
- Ordered immediate release and delivery of the cargo trucks to the Morante spouses.
- Order of 28 February 1985:
- Rejected petitioner Thomas Yang’s counter-replevin bond filed 25 January 1985 as filed beyond the statutory periods.
- Detailed the trial court’s view that the prescriptive five-day period in Section 6, Rule 60 runs from the actual taking of the property by the sheriff (7 January 1985), not from service of summons.
- Observed that counsel for Yang had been actively participating and had filed motions; the court treated service and counsel appearances as relevant to Yang’s obligation to be on guard as to time limits.
- Concluded petitioner’s right to file a counter-bond had prescribed and therefore approval of Yang’s late counter-bond would exceed the court’s jurisdiction.
Legal Standards and Authorities Cited in the Decision
- Definition and nature of a bond:
- A bond is commonly understood to be an obligation or undertaking in writing that is sufficientl