Case Digest: SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND PEDRO BALUBAL

SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND PEDRO BALUBAL

519 SCRA 432 (2007), SECOND DIVISION

Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. (Superlines) is engaged in the business of providing public transportation. One of its buses, while traveling north and approaching the Alabang northbound exit lane, crashed into the radio room of respondent Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC). PNCC‘s Sofronio Salvanera, and Pedro Balubal, then head of traffic control and security department of the South Luzon tollway, investigated the incident. The bus was turned over to the Alabang Traffic Bureau for its own investigation. Because of lack of adequate space, traffic investigator Pat. Cesar Lopera requested that the bus be towed by the PNCC patrol to its compound. Superlines made several requests for the release of the bus but Balubal refused. Instead, Balubal demanded the sum of P40,000.00 or a collateral with the same value for the reconstruction of the damaged radio room.

Superlines filed a replevin suit with damages against PNCC and Balubal before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered Superlines to pay PNCC an amount of P40, 320.00, representing actual damages to the radio room. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision and concluded that the case should have been brought against the police authorities.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a suit for replevin is proper

HELD:

Contrary to PNCC‘s contention, the petition raises questions of law foremost of which is whether the owner of a personal property may initiate an action for replevin against a depositary and recover damages for illegal distraint. In a complaint for replevin, the claimant must convincingly show that he is either the owner or clearly entitled to the possession of the object sought to be recovered, and that the defendant, who is in actual or legal possession thereof, wrongfully detains the same.

In the case at bar, Superlines‘ ownership of the bus being admitted by PNCC, consideration of whether PNCC has been wrongfully detaining it is in order. The bus was towed by the PNCC on the request of Lopera in violation of constitutional right against unreasonable seizures. The seizure and impounding of Superlines‘s bus, on Lopera‘s request, were unquestionably violative of  “the right to be let alone” by the authorities as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court (SC) finds that it cannot pass upon the same without impleading Lopera and any other police officer responsible for ordering the seizure and distraint of the bus. The police authorities, through Lopera, having turned over the bus to PNCC for safekeeping, a contract of deposit was perfected between them and PNCC. Superlines or the trial court motu proprio may implead as defendants the indispensable parties Lopera and any other responsible police officers.