LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC. V. CA, G.R. No.
88938 June 8, 1992
Facts:
In its verified complaint, La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. alleged that it manufactures and sells a gin
popularly known as "Ginebra San Miguel," which is contained in 350 c.c. white flint bottles with
the marks of ownership "LA TONDEÑA, INC." and "GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL" stamped or
blown-in to the bottles and that the sale of the gin in the registered white flint, bottles does not
include the sale of the bottles themselves. Further, La Tondena alleged that Te Tien Ho
(defendant) has in his possession a quantity of the registered bottles worth P20,000.00,
La Tondena prayed that the Court, issue an order directing the, Sheriff or other proper officer to
take into his custody all the 350 c.c. bottles in the possession of the defendant and to dispose of
the same in accordance with the rules of court. Judge Santillan issued the writ of delivery upon
La Tondeña's posting of a bond in the amount of P40,000.00. In implementation of the writ,
Deputy Sheriff Regio Ruefa seized 20,250 bottles with the blown-in marks, "La Tondeña Inc."
and "Ginebra San Miguel" from defendant as evidenced by a Receipt.
The five-day period prescribed by law within which the sufficiency of the replevin bond might
be objected to or the return of the property seized required expired without any person objecting
to the bond or seeking the return of the bottles.
Instead an individual identifying himself as "Tee Chin Ho" filed a an answer which opened with
a plea that he be given "leave to intervene as party who has legal interest in the matter in
litigation" such that he would be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of the
property in litigation and a declaration that he was submitting the answer "as party-intervenor."
On April 7, 1989, Judge Adduru-Santillan promulgated an Order ruling "for intervenor Tee Chin
Ho" and directing issuance of "a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction. The seizure authorized by the Court's writ of replevin is only
against the person whose name and address is pleaded in the complaint namely TE TIEN HO at
No. 1005 Estrada St., Singalong, Manila; the two truckloads empty bottles seized by the Manila
Police and by the Sheriff of Manila from intervenor Tee Chin Ho, is improper and unlawful;
La Tondeña assailed in the Court of Appealsabove-said order, which was however dismissed
Issue: Whether or not the Respondent Judge violated a rule on Replevin that the disposition of a
property seized under a replevin order upon the defendant shall be done only within 5 days from
date of seizure.
Ruling: Yes. A defendant or other party in a replevin proceeding against whom a writ of seizure
has the following alternative remedies set forth in Section 5, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
SEC. 5. Return, of property. — If the defendant objects to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's
bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot require the return of the property as
in this section provided; but if he does not so object may, at any time before the delivery
of the property to the plaintiff require the return thereof, by filing with the clerk or judge
of the court a bond executed to the plaintiff in double the value of the property as stated
in the plaintiff affidavit, for the delivery of the property to the plaintiff, if such delivery
be adjudged, for the payment of such sum to him as may be recovered against the
defendant, and by serving a copy of such bond on the plaintiff or his attorney.
The defendant may avail of these alternative options only within five (5) days after the taking of
the property by the officer. This was made plain albeit impliedly by Section 6 of the same Rule.
Thus if a defendant in a replevin action wishes to have the property taken by the sheriff restored
to him, he should within five days from such taking, (1) post a counter-bond in double the value
of said property, 30 and (2) serve plaintiff with a copy thereof both requirements — as well as
compliance therewith within the five-day period mentioned — being mandatory. 31
Alternatively, "the defendant may object to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's bond, or of the surety
or sureties thereon;" but if he does so, "he cannot require the return of the property" by posting a
counter-bond pursuant to Sections 5 and 6.
In other words, the law does not allow the defendant to file a motion to dissolve or discharge the
writ of seizure (or delivery) — on the ground of insufficiency of the complaint or of the grounds
relied upon therefor, as in proceedings on preliminary attachment or injunction 32 and thereby put
at issue the matter of the title or right, of possession over the specific chattel being replevied, the
policy apparently being that said matter should be ventilated and determined only at the trial on
the merits.
It was thus imperative for the Trial Judge, before ultimately resolving the motion for leave to
intervene as party defendant of the person identifying himself as "Tee Chin Ho," to determine the
precise status of said "Tee Chin Ho:" whether he was indeed a stranger to the action, as he
claims, and could therefore avail of the remedy of intervention as a party defendant, or he was in
truth a proper party defendant, who had been mistakenly and inadvertently referred to as "Te
Tien Ho", and who therefore only had the alternative remedies aforementioned of either (a)
objecting to the replevin bond or the surety or sureties thereof or (b) posting a counter-bond to
compel return of the property.
