Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FACTS:
Sunbanun is the owner of a residential lot in Cebu City. On July 1995, Sunbanun leased
the premises to Go for one year which would expire on July 1996. As required under the
lease contract, respondent paid a deposit of P16,000 to answer for damages and unpaid
rent. To earn extra income, respondent accepted lodgers, mostly her relatives, from
whom she received a monthly income of P15,000. Respondent paid the monthly rental
until March 1996 when petitioner drove away respondents lodgers by telling them that
they could stay on the rented premises only until April 1996 since she was terminating
the lease. The lodgers left the rented premises by April 1996, and petitioner then
padlocked the rooms vacated by respondents lodgers. On May 1996, respondent Go
filed an action for damages against petitioner Go and alleged that she lost income for the
months April, May and June since the lease contract would only expire on July. The Trial
court ruled in favor of respondent and ordered petitioner to pay respondent actual
damages of P45,000 for respondents lost income from her lodgers for the months of
April, May, and June 1996, and attorneys fees of P8,000. The case was appealed to the
CA and judgment was favored against the petitioner with the modification that exemplary
and moral damages be awarded to respondent. Hence the present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the award of damages with the modification that
exemplary and moral damages be awarded to the respondent.
HELD:
No.
In this case, the trial court rendered a judgment on the pleadings. Section 1, Rule 34 of
the Rules of Court reads:
SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings. Where an answer fails to tender an
issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse partys pleading, the
court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions
for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material
facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved.
The trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings
filed by a party if there is no controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed. A
judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded, and is based
exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the
accompanying annexes.
The award of moral damages according to Articles 2219, 2220, and in relation to
Article 21, also with Article 2232 and 2208 of the Civil Code has been correctly applied
by both the trial court and the appellate court.
already determined to refer to the July 1, 1998 order denying the motion for a new trial or
reconsideration.
the CA, and not from June 2, 1999, when petitioners claimed to have been informed of
the CA decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the negligence of counsel amounted to denial of due process.
HELD:
Petitioner contends the ff reasons why they should be granted new trial because the
previous counsel: 1) failed to file its Answer to the Complaint despite receipt of the
Courts Order denying his motion to dismiss.2.) He failed to inform his client of the fact of
his failure to file its Answer and of the Court Order declaring them in default and allowing
plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte. 3.) He failed to file the Motion to Lift Order of
Default to regain his clients standing in Court. 4.) He misrepresented that he already
filed the Motion to Lift Order of Default when confronted by client when it learned of said
Order of default. 5.) He never bothered to verify what transpired at the ex-parte hearing
and was not able to file the necessary pleadings to lift order considering that the case
was submitted for decision without petitioners evidence.6.) He miserably failed to inform
client of the adverse decision despite receipt and practically did nothing to protect its
clients interest.
The SC held that the gross negligence of previous counsel amounted to denial
of due process. I quote SC:
In view of the foregoing circumstances, higher interests of justice and equity demand that petitioners
be allowed to present evidence on their defense. Petitioners may not be made to suffer for the lawyers
mistakes and should be afforded another opportunity, at least, to introduce evidence on their behalf. To cling
to the general rule in this case is only to condone rather than rectify a serious injustice to a party whose only
fault was to repose his faith and entrust his innocence to his previous lawyers.
her own account, she arrived on September 10, 1999. She cannot, therefore, feign
ignorance of the said decision and blame the death of her counsel for such ignorance.
Moreover, the SC cannot disregard the fact that respondent was able to engage the
services of a new counsel to represent her in another case pending before the RTC as
early as June 5, 1995, in compliance with the courts directive for her to hire a substitute
for her deceased counsel. Given this, respondent cannot claim lack of knowledge of the
death of her former counsel, and use it as an excuse for her failure to file a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal from the said DARAB Decision.
MESINA V. MEER; GR NO. 46845; 7/2/02
FACTS:
A complained was filed by respondent Meer with the trial court against Mesina for
cancellation and correctness of real estate title. The trial court ruled in favor of
petitioners but was reversed by the RTC on appeal. Upon appeal by petitioners with
the CA, the same was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the availability of Petition for Relief under Rule 38, as a remedy against the judgment of
the Court of Appeals promulgated in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is proper.
HELD
After careful examination of the case, the SC resolved to deny the petition.
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT is an equitable remedy and is allowed only under
exceptional circumstances and only if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
is present. Where the defendant has other available or adequate remedy such as a
motion for new trial or appeal from the adverse decision, he cannot avail himself of this
remedy.
Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the PETITION FOR RELIEF must
be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other
proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the
petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. Most
importantly, it must be filed with the same court which rendered the decision.
As correctly pointed out by the CA, the petitioners' allegation of extrinsic fraud
should have been brought at issue in the MTC. If they truly believe that the default of the
spouses Mesina prejudices their rights, they should have questioned this from the very
beginning. Yet, they chose to participate in the proceedings ans actively presented their
defense. And their efforts were rewarded as the MTC rules in their favor.
When the respondent appealed the case to the RTC, they never raised this issue.
Even after the RTC reversed the finding of the MTC, and the CA sustained this reversal,
petitioners made no effort to bring this issue for consideration. The SC will not allow
petitioners, in guise of equity, to benefit from their own negligence.