Case Digest

LAUREL v ABROGAR
G.R. No. 155076 January 13, 2009
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.

FACTS:
This case stems from a case where Laurel is one of the accused for theft filed with the
RTC-Makati. Allegations in the amended Information stated that he and his co-accused
conspired to take, steal, and use the international long distance calls belonging to the
Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) PLDT by conducting International Simple
Resale (ISR). Laurel filed a motion to quash the information along with a Motion for
Reconsideration on the ground that the factual allegations do not constitute the felony of
theft to which was both denied by the Trial Court.

Subsequently, a petition for review was filed with the Supreme Court’s first division
which granted the motion of the petitioner to quash the information for insufficiency in
the allegations stating that international long distance calls and the business of proving
telecommunication or telephone services are not personal properties under Article 308
of the RPC.

On the other hand, PLDT filed a motion for reconsideration with motion to refer the case
to the Supreme Court En Banc and maintained that the amended information is valid
and sufficient. PLDT alleged that the international calls and business of providing
telecommunication or telephone service are personal properties capable of
appropriation and can be objects of theft.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the business of providing telecommunication or telephone service
are personal properties

RULING:
Yes. While petitioner insisted that a telephone call cannot be considered as personal
property susceptible of appropriation since it is a conversation on the phone or a
communication carried out using the telephone and is not synonymous to electric
current or impulses, the Court ruled based on the provisions of Article 414 of the Civil
Code stating that all things which are or may be the object of appropriation are
considered either real property or personal property. Interest in business was not
specifically enumerated as personal property in the Civil Code in force at the time the
prior decision was rendered. Yet, interest in business was declared to be personal
property since it is capable of appropriation and is not included in the enumeration of
real properties. Business is likewise not enumerated as personal property under the
Civil Code. Just like interest in business, however, it may be appropriated. Following the
ruling in Strochecker v. Ramirez, business should also be classified as personal
property. Since it is not included in the exclusive enumeration of real properties under
Article 415, it is therefore personal property.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to grant the MR but remand the case to the trial court,
directing the prosecution to amend the Amended Information and clearly state that the
property subject of the theft are the services and business of respondent PLDT and
not only the “international long distance calls”.