PLDT v.

ALVAREZ

ISSUE:

1. W/N PLDT’s telephone service constitutes as personal property under art 308 of the RPC.

Dispute: PLDT argues that their business is personal property which can be the subject of theft whereas
Alvarez argue that it is not personal property.

Why Sue: After finding out that a number that supposedly came from abroad actually came from the PH,
and the number belonging to Alvarez, PLDT accused them of theft under Art 308 and violation of PD 401

RULES:

Art 308 – Theft

Art 309- Penalties for Theft

PD 401 - Penalizing the Unauthorized installation of water, electrical, or telephone or telephone

connections, the use of tempered water or electrical meters and other acts.

Case: Laurel vs. Judge Abrogar: Filed a motion to quash information on the ground that the information
does not charge an offense.

ANLYSIS:
Facts: PLDT’s “property” is their telephone service for long distance calls from abroad. They conduct
tests to check for network fraud and during one test, they found that one of the calling numbers came
from the Philippines and belonged to Abigail Alvarez and Vernon Razon, both subscribers to the service.
It was found as well that their phone lines were illegally connected to equipment. PLDT had the
equipment seized with a search warrant. They accused Alvarez of theft and violation of PD 401. Alvarez’s
defense was that no theft was committed, and the search warrant was invalid.

COMPLAINANT: PLDT DEFENDANT: Abigail Alvarez, Vernon Razon

1. Accused Razon and Alvarez of theft and
violation of PD 401
- After finding out they engaged in
network fraud, PLDT filed a case
against them since they stole their
property
2. The Laurel case is not yet final and
executory
- The case was still pending before the
SC
3. Laurel Case is different
- Laurel involves a quashal of
information, not of a search warrant
4. The court must only be convinced that
there is probable cause.
(Alvarez)
- The Court had no authority to issue
the warrant, it lacked particularity,
and there was no probable cause
 It was enforced in Paranque
but issued by RTC Pasay, The
warrant had no specificity
and no probable cause
- Laurel has persuasive effect
 Laurel is the ruling case in the
matter of things described in
the case.
 - The court does not need to look into
the crime as they did in Laurel
5. The search warrants are valid
- The items seized connected to the
offense punished by PD 401
- The search warrants can withstand
scrutiny
 The matter is a novel issue
and the items seized have no
relation to PD 401

CONCLUSION:
- Since Alvarez illegally connected PLDT lines with other equipment, they violated PD 401 and
committed theft under Art 308 for taking PLDT’s personal property.
- But, in the CA, the court cited the Laurel Case which favored Alvarez, In Laurel it was ruled
that PLDT’s business was not personal property and so could not be taken; Art 308 does not
apply. The SC said in that only movable property that physically exist can be stolen.
- In the MR in Laurel, the SC stated that personal property is anything susceptible of
appropriation which included PLDT’s business. Its use without PLDT’s consent is theft.
- The Laurel case was applied her and so PLDT won the case against Alvarez