G.R. No. 122195 July 23, 1998
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DENNIS COO, respondents.

FACTS

On July 23, 1984, private respondent Dennis Coo purchased six tons of assorted scrap aluminum wires and accessories from New Alloy Metal Company in Manila. The goods were shipped and received by Coo in Bacolod City on July 30, 1984. The following day, July 31, 1984, elements of the 331st PC seized the goods from Coo’s residence and deposited them at the PC headquarters. A criminal complaint for violation of the anti-fencing law was filed against Coo but was dismissed by the Investigating Fiscal for insufficiency of evidence. Upon representation of petitioner NPC, the case was re-investigated, leading to the filing of an Information. On August 23, 1985, the trial court acquitted Coo, ruling the wares belonged to him. Despite this acquittal, petitioner NPC obtained the property from the PC Headquarters. Coo demanded the return of the wares, and upon NPC’s refusal, filed a complaint for replevin against NPC and its officers. After posting a bond, Coo regained possession of the items on August 5, 1986. The trial court declared Coo the owner and possessor of the aluminum wires and accessories. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification, absolving NPC’s officers from personal liability and deleting awards for compensatory and moral damages, but ordering NPC to pay nominal damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that private respondent Dennis Coo is entitled to possession of the seized aluminum wires and accessories, and in holding petitioner NPC liable for nominal damages and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition without merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive unless palpably unsupported by evidence, which was not the case here. The Court rejected NPC’s arguments that the property seized was different from that covered by Coo’s sales invoice and waybill. It was explained that the goods were moved to Coo’s residence due to an overcrowded warehouse, and the seized property weighed about five tons, not nine tons as claimed by NPC. The term “scrap” was broad enough to cover the aluminum wires and transmission hardware, which were described as broken and useful only as raw material. The Court found that Coo had proven by a preponderance of evidence his entitlement to possession, presenting documentary evidence of purchase and delivery, while NPC relied merely on opinions and assumptions unsupported by concrete evidence. In a replevin suit, proof of entitlement to legal possession, not ownership, is sufficient. The Court upheld the award of nominal damages under Article 2221 of the Civil Code to vindicate Coo’s violated right to possession, and attorney’s fees under Article 2208, as NPC’s refusal to return the property compelled Coo to incur expenses to protect his interest, and NPC acted in gross and evident bad faith.