G.R. No. 125761 - SALVADOR P. MALBAROSA, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and S.E.A. DEVELOPMENT CORP..DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed before this Honorable Court that: Before hearing and upon approval of plaintiffs bond, a writ be issued immediately for the seizure of the vehicle described in paragraph 3 hereof, wherever it may be found, and for its delivery to plaintiff; After trial of the issues, judgment be rendered adjudging that plaintiff has the right to the possession of the said motor vehicle, and, in the alternative, that defendant must deliver such motor vehicle to plaintiff or pay to plaintiff the value thereof in case delivery cannot be made; After trial, hold the defendant liable to plaintiff for the use of the motor vehicle in the amount of P1,000.00 per day from date of demand until the motor vehicle is returned to plaintiff. After trial, hold the defendant liable to plaintiff for attorneys fees and costs of litigation in the amount of P100,000.00. Plaintiffs likewise prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances. [11] On April 30, 1990, the trial court issued an order for the issuance of a writ of replevin. [12] Correspondingly, the writ of replevin was issued on May 8, 1990. [13] On May 11, 1990, the Sheriff served the writ on the petitioner and was able to take possession of the vehicle in question. On May 15, 1990, the petitioner was able to recover the possession of the vehicle upon his filing of the counter-bond. [14] In his Answer to the complaint, the petitioner, as defendant therein, alleged that he had already agreed on March 28, 1990 to the March 14, 1990 Letter-offer of the respondent, the plaintiff therein, and had notified the said plaintiff of his acceptance; hence, he had the right to the possession of the car. Philtectic Corporation had no right to withdraw the offer of the respondent SEADC. The petitioner testified that after conferring with his counsel, he had decided to accept the offer of the respondent, and had affixed his signature on the space below the word Agree in the March 14, 1990 Letter-offer, thus: Agreed: (Sgd.) SALVADOR P. MALBAROSA Date: 3 28 - 90 [15] The petitioner adduced evidence that on March 9, 1990, he had written Senen Valero that he was agreeable to an incentive compensation of P218,000 to be settled by the respondent by transferring the car to the petitioner valued at P180,000 and P38,000 worth of shares of the Architectural Center, Inc. on the claim of Da Costa that respondent was almost bankrupt. However, the petitioner learned that the respondent was financially sound; hence, he had decided to receive his incentive compensation of P395,000 in cash. [16] On March 29, 1990, the petitioner called up the office of Louis Da Costa to inform the latter of his acceptance of the letter-offer of the respondent. However, the petitioner was told by Liwayway Dinglasan, the telephone receptionist of Commonwealth Insurance Co, that Da Costa was out of the office. The petitioner asked Liwayway to inform Da Costa that he had called him up