G.R. No. 88938 June 8, 1992
LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIVIDAD ADDURU SANTILLAN, Judge, Branch 38, RTC, Manila, DEPUTY SHERIFF REGIO RUEFA and TEE CHIN HO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. filed a verified complaint for “replevin with damages” in the Regional Trial Court of Manila against “Te Tien Ho,” described as a junk dealer with an office at 1005 Estrada St., Singalong, Manila. The complaint alleged that La Tondeña manufactures gin sold in 350 c.c. white flint bottles with blown-in marks “LA TONDEÑA, INC.” and “GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL,” which bottles are registered with the Philippine Patent Office under Republic Act No. 623 , as amended. It claimed that the sale of the gin does not include the sale of the bottles, and that Te Tien Ho was in possession of such bottles worth P20,000.00 without its written consent, which is unlawful under R.A. 623. The court issued a writ of delivery upon La Tondeña’s posting of a P40,000.00 bond. Deputy Sheriff Regio Ruefa seized 20,250 bottles from 1105 Estrada St., Singalong, Manila, and executed a receipt stating the bottles were received from “TE TIEN HO.” Tee Chin Ho signed this receipt as a witness and “defendant.” The sheriff’s return attested that prior to the seizure, he served the summons, complaint, and writ personally on Te Tien Ho at 1105 Estrada St., and Te Tien Ho requested his wife to sign his name on the documents. No objection to the replevin bond or request for return of the property was made within the five-day period. Instead, Tee Chin Ho filed an “ANSWER (with preliminary injunction and compulsory counterclaim)” seeking to intervene, asserting that the bottles were seized from him at 1105 Estrada St., not from Te Tien Ho at 1005 Estrada St., and that ownership of the bottles transferred to purchasers upon sale of the gin. He also alleged La Tondeña had previously caused seizure of his bottles through the police. The sheriff delivered the seized bottles to La Tondeña. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and later granted Tee Chin Ho’s application for preliminary injunction. La Tondeña filed a motion to amend its complaint to correct the defendant’s name and address, alleging Te Tien Ho and Tee Chin Ho are the same person. The trial court denied this motion and the motion for reconsideration. La Tondeña filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. La Tondeña then filed the present petition.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing La Tondeña’s petition for certiorari, which challenged the trial court’s orders granting Tee Chin Ho’s application for preliminary injunction and denying La Tondeña’s motion to amend its complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the matter of amendment, the Court ruled that La Tondeña’s motion to amend its complaint, filed after Tee Chin Ho had filed his answer-in-intervention, was not a matter of right but required leave of court, which was correctly denied. The amendment sought to change the defendant’s name and address, which constituted a substantial alteration. The Court noted that Tee Chin Ho, by filing his answer, had already placed himself within the court’s jurisdiction, and the amendment was unnecessary. Regarding the preliminary injunction, the Court found that the trial court had sufficient grounds to issue it. Tee Chin Ho, as the possessor of the bottles, was presumed the owner under the Civil Code. The Court also noted that under R.A. No. 623 , as amended, La Tondeña had no right of action to recover the empty bottles from any person to whom the registered manufacturer or seller had transferred the containers. Furthermore, the seizure was executed against Te Tien Ho at 1005 Estrada St., but the bottles were taken from Tee Chin Ho at 1105 Estrada St., making the seizure improper. The Court emphasized that the five-day period for objecting to the sufficiency of the replevin bond or requiring the return of the property applies only to the defendant named in the writ, not to a third-party claimant like Tee Chin Ho. Therefore, the trial court acted within its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and prevent further damage.