Court clears highway patrol of liability for holding car

CEBU, Philippines - The Regional Trial Court has dismissed the civil case for replevin filed against the Regional Highway Patrol Group (RHPG)-7, accused of holding a sports car.

RTC Branch 7 presiding judge Simeon Dumdum Jr. said that the complainant, Maria Paz Yu, violated the forum shopping.

“Clearly the plaintiff is guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping for which reason of complaint is dismissed and the writ of replevin recalled,” the order reads.

According to the law, forum shopping exists when two or more actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances; and raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues.

Yu through her lawyer Noel Archival filed a civil case before the court against RHPG-7, the Regional Highway Patrol Unit (RHPU) represented by their chief, Supt. Romulado Iglesia.

Sometime in June 2013, the court issued a writ of replevin. Together with the court sheriff, Archival went to the RHPU to get the BMW 750i Active Hybrid 7 but was not released.

Deputy chief of the RHPU-7, Supt. Eduardo Mara, earlier said the office has a right to refuse to release the luxury vehicle because it did not receive court summons.

Reportedly, the said vehicle was one of the vehicles included in the search warrant issued by RTC Judge Alexander Acosta of Branch 9.

BMW 750i Active Hybrid 7 was under the name of Yu, the mother in law of Joven Tan Entote, who was arrested and jailed in Manila for carnapping charges.

Based on their investigation, the RHPU said that the plate number of the vehicle NQ1 707 was not manufactured by the Land Transportation Office plate-making plant and the alphanumeric is intended for a Toyota Corolla and not for a BMW 750i.

Furthermore, Dumdum ruled because Yu “constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping,” she is liable for indirect contempt and ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.

Dumdum on July 26, 2013 issued an order giving the RHPU five days to submit their documentary evidence of their allegation that, contrary to Yu’s certification against forum shopping dated May 27, 2013.

The RPHU said they submitted a copy of order of the Office of the Ombudsman dated Feb. 19, 2013 requiring Yu to file her counter-affidavit and a copy of the counter-affidavit of the plaintiff together with others dated May 23, 2013.

“These documents are proof positive that the plaintiffs as of the date she executed the certification against forum shopping was indeed facing cases before the Ombudsman, and had knowledge of the same,” the order reads.  (FREEMAN)