Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

ABIGAIL SOL IDMILAO MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

S.C. G.R. NO. 123456

-versus- FOR: Certiorari under Rule 65
(RTC Civil Case No. 4455)

HON. TEODORO PEORO, IN HIS CAPACITY

AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 10 AND
MIGUEL RAMONKITO MENDOZA,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Petitioner ABIGAIL SOL IDMILAO MENDOZA, by counsel, respectfully
states:

I. NATURE OF THE PETITION

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

seeking to annul and set aside the following Resolutions rendered in
connection with Civil Case No. 4455, entitled, Miguel Ramonkito Mendoza
vs. Abigail Sol Mendoza, for having been issued without jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction:

a. Resolution dated 22 November 2019 rendered by Honorable

Teodoro Peoro of Regional Trial Court Branch 1, giving due course to
Private Respondent Miguel Ramonkito Mendoza Affidavit Complaint dated
24 September 2019 for Breach of Contract and rendering decision in favor
of Private Respondent and ordering the Petitoner to pay damages and
other fees.

In issuing the Assailed Resolution, Public Respondent gravely abused

its discretion in issuing such resolution favoring the complainant, which
disregarded the overwhelming evidence on record that there is no Breach
of Contract and existence of Fraud on the part of the Petioner. On the
contrary, the evidence on record, supported by settled jurisprudence and
applicable laws, indubitably establish that Petitioner clearly and absolutely
committed no illegal or unlawful act(s).

Petitioner does not have any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, except for this Petition.

II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

On September 30, 2019, Defendant Abigail Sol Mendoza in her

answer alleged the following:

Plaintiff Ramonkito Menoza and defendant Abigail Sol Mendoza

executed a notarized contract of sale wherein the defendant was supposed
to sell to the plaintiff her collection of Hello Kitty and Keroppi Japanese
collector’s items amounting to approximately Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Pesos (Php 250,000.00).

Upon execution of the contract, plaintiff gave defendant a down

payment in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00).

Two days before the agreed delivery time, the defendant had a
sudden change of heart and decided to tell the plaintiff that she is not
interested in selling the items anymore.

Defendant denies that which purport that plaintiff resented about

the decision of defendant. Defendant properly informed the plaintiff about
his decision to execute contract to sell the subject items in favor of Mr.
Monico Aggabao, Jr. and plaintiff did not object thereto and that the
plaintiff openly accepted the return of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php
100,000) as evidenced by a return receipt.

The plaintiff have not exerted earnest efforts to compromise under

Barangay Conciliation proceedings, plaintiff is not interested in settling their
differences and that plaintiff wanted a very disadvantageous position
against the defendant.

In his Reply, on October 5, 2019, plaintiff, through counsel, alleged

the following:

The parties executed a notarized contract of sale wherein the

defendant was supposed to sell to the plaintiff her collection of Hello Kitty
and Keroppi Japanese collector’s items amounting to approximately Two
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 250,000.00).

Upon execution of the contract, plaintiff gave defendant a down

payment in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00).
 Two days before the agreed delivery time, the defendant had a
sudden change of heart and decided to tell the plaintiff that she is not
interested in selling the items anymore.

Plaintiff denies the allegation of the defendant alleging that the latter
properly informed the plaintiff about his decision to execute contract to sell
the subject items in favor of Mr. Monico Aggabao, Jr. and plaintiff did not
object thereto and that the plaintiff openly accepted the return of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000) downpayment.

III. TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Petitioner received on 30th of November 2019 the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court dated 27th of November 2019.

Petitioner then timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the

Assailed Resolution with the Regional Trial Court on 29 November 2019, in
accordance with Rules of Court for the period of filing a motion.

On 4 December 2019, Petitioner received the Assailed Resolution,

denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Under Section 4, Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, and pursuant to the ruling of this Honorable Court in
Fabian vs. Desierto, Petitioner has sixty (60) days from receipt of the
Second Assailed Resolution within which to file a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Thus, this Petition is timely filed.

IV. PARTIES

Petitioner Abigail Sol Idmilao Mendoza is the sister of the plaintiff,

also of legal age, Filipino citizen and with residential address at c, where she
may be served with summons and other court processes;

Private respondent Miguel Ramonkito Mendoza is single, of legal age,

Filipino citizen, and with residential address at No. 123 Sta. Ana St., Quezon
City. Petitioner may be served with court orders and other legal processes
through undersigned counsel.

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Ramonkito Menoza and defendant Abigail Sol Mendoza

executed a notarized contract of sale wherein the defendant was supposed
to sell to the plaintiff her collection of Hello Kitty and Keroppi Japanese
collector’s items amounting to approximately Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Pesos (Php 250,000.00).
 Upon execution of the contract, plaintiff gave defendant a down
payment in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00).

Two days before the agreed delivery time, the defendant had a
sudden change of heart and decided to tell the plaintiff that she is not
interested in selling the items anymore.

The plaintiff resented the defendant’s decision since the former

executed another contract to sell the subject items in favor of Mr. Monico
Aggabao, Jr.

The parties exerted earnest efforts to compromise under Barangay

Conciliation proceedings, but no settlement has been made. Thus,
prompting the plaintiff to file the instant case before the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, Branch 1.

Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 1 rendered a decision, the

dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgement is hereby rendered in favor

of the plaintiff RAMONKITO MENDOZA and against the defendant ABIGAIL
SOL MENDOZA ordering the latter to pay the plaintiff the following:

1. The amount of Php. 100,000.00 as actual damages;

2. The amount of Php. 150,000.00 as moral damages;
3. The amount of Php. 30,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
and cost of suit.”

VI. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Witness for the plaintiff is Mr. Rene Molina, single, of legal age,
resident of the 123 Malvar Street, Quezon City, whose signature appear in
the Contract to Sell executed between plaintiff Ramonkito Mendoza and
defendant Abigail Sol Mendoza before of the Notary Public. The witness,
according to the plaintiff, is a childhood friend to both of the parties and
that have been known to their barangay as Renren whom is the favorite
friend of Abigail Sol Mendoza. When asked as regards the existence of the
Contract to Sell between the parties, the witness answered in affirmative
stating that the subject of the the contract is a collectors item Hello Kitty
owned by the plaintiff Ramonkito Mendoza.

Rene Molina was certain that the contract executed between the
parties is entered into by the parties for the reason that defendant Abigail
Sol Mendoza was dying to obtain such rare item of Hello Kitty. It was also
conveyed to him that the plaintiff was wiling to sell such item to the
plaintiff for a reasonable price. Hence, he was invited by the defendant
before a Notary Public to serve as one of the witnesses.
 The second witness presented by the plaintiff is Mr. Kent Limpot,
single, of legal age and a resident of 432 Luna Street, Quezon City, whose
signature also appear in the document presented before this Court. Mr.
Limpot, as alleged by the plaintiff is a college friend of the defendant Abigail
Sol Mendoza who is in the business and also an enthusiast of collecting rare
items specifically toys from Japan. Plaintiff stated that he was acquainted
to Mr. Limpot for the reason that they both have the same interest over
rare items. The second witness, when asked as regards the existence of the
said Contract to Sell, answerd in affirmative and stated that it is his
signature appearing in such document and was in fact executed before a
Notary Public.

Both witnesses answered in affirmative that the said Contract to Sell

provides a provision that upon execution of the document, the defendant
shall pay the plaintiff an amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(100,00.00) as down payment and that the remaining One Hundred Fifty
Thousand (P 150, 000.00), shall be paid in cash on or before 18 th day of
March 2019.

Plaintiff vehemently denied that he was properly informed about

the latters decision to execute contract to sell the subject items in favor of
Mr. Monico Aggabao, Jr. and he did not object thereto and that he openly
accepted the return of One Hundred Thousand Pesos. Plaintiff in support of
this denial presented Mr. Rene Molina’s testimony that the latter was with
him when the supposed proposal to cancel the contract was not agreed
upon by the plaintiff and that there was a strong opposition to such
proposal.

Plaintiff also denied that the defendant that earnest efforts to

compromise under Barangay Conciliation proceedings was not made and
that plaintiff is not interested in settling their dispute at first instance. In
fact, he was the one who availed the remedy of going to the Barangay
Conciliation Proceedings as evidenced by the testimony of the Barangay
Kapitan Samuel Kap along with his Barangay Kagawads before instituting an
action for Breach of Contract to this Court.

VII. GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION

PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING

TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS
FINDING THE PETITONER LIABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD, DAMAGES
AND OTHER FEES. THE ELEMENTS FOR THE DEMANDABILITY OF THE CONTRACT
IS NOT YET EXISTENT TO FILE THE ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

VIII.DISCUSSION

PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING

TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS
FINDING THE PETITONER LIABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD, DAMAGES
AND OTHER FEES. THE ELEMENTS FOR THE DEMANDABILITY OF THE CONTRACT
IS NOT YET EXISTENT TO FILE THE ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

I. BREACH OF CONTRACT

In a contract to sell, the obligation of the seller to sell becomes

demandable only upon the happening of the suspensive condition. In this
case, the suspensive condition is the full payment of the purchase price.
Such full payment may only give rise to a right to demand the execution of
the contract of sale.
It is only upon the existence of the contract of sale that the seller
becomes obligated to transfer the ownership of the thing sold to the buyer.
It is evident in the case at bar that the defendant has proven by
preponderance of evidence that the Contract to Sell executed between
them has not yet become due and demandable and that no full payment is
paid by the plaintiff to make him liable for breach when he instituted such
action.

II. DAMAGES

Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be awarded in
cases of breach of contract provided that there was fraud or bad faith, to
wit:
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for
awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the
circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule
applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.
To recover moral damages in an action for breach of contract, the
breach must be palpably wanton, reckless and malicious, in bad faith,
oppressive, or abusive. Hence, the person claiming bad faith must prove its
existence by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes
good faith.

III. FRAUD

Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It

imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing
of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or interest or ill
will that partakes of the nature of fraud. It is, therefore, a question of
intention, which can be inferred from one’s conduct and/or
contemporaneous statements.
Since in this case the defendant has proved by preponderance of
evidence his very intention to inform the plaintiff as to what causes such
change or deviation to the original contract contemplated by them, there is
absence of dishonesty on his part which would amount or partake of the
nature of fraud. Hence, there is no reckless or malicious motive in his part.

Thus, Public Respondent committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing and
approving/affirming the Assailed Resolution. The fact that the absence of
the foregoing elements should have established the absence of any Breach
of Contract to hold Petitioner liable for damages, and for Fraud on the part
of the Petitoner, is proof in itself that Public Respondent acted in a
whimsical and arbitrary manner, contrary to law and settled jurisprudence,
in finding instead, that there is Breach and Fraud to charge Petitioner with
said liabilty.

The Public Respondent has the public duty to determine the

sufficiency of the complaint, and this is done by evaluating the recitals and
annexes/evidence thereon.  This is to establish the elements necessary to
engender a well-founded belief that petitioner committed a breach and
that he is probably guilty thereof or of any malice or bad faith.  In this case,
no way can Public Respondent find the Affidavit Complaint sufficient and
find Breach and Bad faith on the basis of overwhelming evidence which
show that Petitioner did not commit any illegal or unlawfull acts against
Private Respondent.  Thus, had Public Respondent considered the evidence
on record, Complaint as well as the Assailed Resolution will have no leg to
stand on and the charges against Petitioner would have been dismissed for
being bereft of legal and factual merit.  It is clear that Public Respondent
has chosen not to perform its positive duty required by law, and hence,
committed grave abuse of discretion.

For these reasons, Petitioner implores the authority of this

Honorable Court to abate the Public Respondent’s illegal and reprehensible
acts through the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Petitioner ABIGAIL SOL MMENDOZA respectfully prays

that this Honorable Court give due course to this Petition for Certiorari and
render judgment as follows:

(1) ISSUE a Writ of Certiorari ANNULLING, REVERSING and SETTING

ASIDE the Resolutions dated 27 Novemebr 2019 by the Honorable
Judge Teodoro Peoro, and in lieu thereof,
 (2) ISSUE an ORDER DIMSISSING the Resolution against the
Petitioner.

Petitioner prays for such other or further relief as may be deemed

just and equitable under the premises.

City for Manila, 12 December 2019.

MONICO A. AGGABAO JR
Counsel for Petitoner
34th st., Amoranto
26th Ave., Good Street
Taguig City
PTR No. A-345123; 05.18.17; Taguig City
IBP No. LRN-78945; Makati City
MCLE No. V-86734; June 14, 2018
Roll of Attorneys No. 73590
Contact No. 09453292345

Copy furnished:

ATTY. RONALD JERICK BACLIG

Counsel for the Defendant
IBP No. `13123
Roll no. 12312
MCLE No. 43434
123th floor, Manly Building
Don Quijote Street

ATTY. JOHN DOE

OIC, Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court of Manila
City, Branch 10 Old Nawasa Bldg.
LRT Central Station
Manila City.

EXPLANATION
Copies of the foregoing pleading had been served by Registered Mail
due to the unavailability of a messenger who could have otherwise effected
personal service.

MONICO A. AGGABAO

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

 I, ABIGAIL SOL MENDOZA, after being duly sworn, hereby depose
and state that:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above petition and that I have read

the same and that the allegations contained therein are true and correct of
my own personal knowledge based on authentic records in my possession.

2. Petitioner has not commenced any action nor filed any claim
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any
other Court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and that if I
should hereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending therein, I undertake to report the fact within five (5) days
to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of

December, 2019 at the City of Makati.

ABIGAIL SOL MENDOZA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 12th day of December,

2019, at the City of Makati, affiant exhibited to me his Driver’s License No.
D12-231856, issued on 12 June 2018 at Quezon City, as competent
evidence of his identity.

GEORGE UY
Notary Public for Quezon City
Mabbalacat St. Quezon City
Commission Serial 837645
Until Junw. 12, 2022
Roll of Attorneys No. 54535
PTR No. 345678; 2-11-18; Quezon
IBP No. 949864; 1-11-18; Quezon

Doc. No. __44_

Page No. __6_
Book No. __7___
Series of 2019.