G.R. No. L-29492. February 29, 1972.
BATAAN HARDWOOD CORPORATION, ET AL., petitioners, vs. DY PAC & CO., INC. and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bataan Hardwood Corporation and respondent Dy Pac & Co., Inc. entered into a contract on July 6, 1960, superseding a prior agreement. The contract confirmed petitioner’s indebtedness of P21,000.00 to respondent, stipulating a schedule of installment payments with 1% monthly interest. As security, petitioner and its co-petitioner Mauro B. Ganzon mortgaged a vessel in favor of respondent. The contract included terms allowing respondent to declare the entire balance due upon default, impose a penalty of P100.00 daily after demand, and recover an additional 25% of the amount due as attorney’s fees in case of foreclosure.
Petitioner defaulted on its obligations by failing to insure the mortgaged vessel as required and by being irregular in paying the stipulated installments and interest. Respondent made several demands. By the time of filing the complaint, petitioner had paid only some installments, leaving a principal balance of P17,250.00. Respondent was compelled to insure the vessel itself, incurring expenses of P2,131.56. Respondent filed a complaint for replevin and sum of money in the Court of First Instance of Manila, praying for possession of the vessel, payment of the balance with interest, daily penalties, reimbursement for insurance, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court, in a replevin action, could validly render a money judgment for the unpaid balance of the secured obligation, damages, and attorney’s fees, despite the petitioner’s contention that such a judgment constituted an improper splitting of a single cause of action.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court’s judgment. The legal logic is grounded on the principles of avoiding multiplicity of suits and the specific provisions of the Rules of Court governing replevin. Rule 60, Section 9 of the Revised Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court in a replevin suit to render a judgment “in the alternative for the delivery [of the property] to the party entitled to the same, or for the value in case delivery cannot be made, and also for such damages as either party may prove.” This rule is designed to settle all related matters in one proceeding to prevent protracted litigation.
The respondent’s complaint, while primarily for recovery of possession (replevin) of the mortgaged vessel due to default, inherently included the ancillary demand for payment of the secured debt, incidental damages, and stipulated attorney’s fees. These claims arise from the same contract and the same set of facts constituting petitioner’s breach. Awarding the monetary claims alongside the possessory relief does not split a cause of action; it adjudicates the entire controversy comprehensively. To require respondent to file a separate action for the money claims would contravene the rule against splitting causes of action and would foster unnecessary multiplicity of suits, which the rules seek to prevent. The Court found the appeal frivolous and imposed additional attorney’s fees and treble costs on petitioners for delaying tactics.