Photo from Unsplash | Jakub Żerdzicki
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The Supreme Court clarified that the requirement of indicating the material dates in the petition is separate from the requirement that the petition be timely filed, as both must be complied with.
The Supreme Court Decides: Procedural rules are mere tools to facilitate the
attainment of justice. As such, a strict and rigid application of the rules which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.
On September 14, 1999, Daniel T. So, as lessor, entered into a Contract of Lease with respondent Food Fest Land, Inc., as lessee, over a commercial space in San Antonio Village, Makati City for a period of three (3) years, where Food Fest intended to operate a Kentucky Fried Chicken store.
On April 26, 2001, for Food Fest’s failure to pay rent, So filed an Ejectment Case against Food Fest before Branch 64, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Makati City.
The MeTC ruled in favor of So, ordered the forfeiture of the security deposit in the amount of PhP64,000.00 in his favor, and directed Food Fest to pay him unpaid rentals from August 2000 until March 2001 in the amount of PhP64,000.00, with penalties accrued thereon, liquidated
damages in a sum equivalent to 25% of the total sum due and demandable, and attorney’s fees.
The RTC-Branch 143 reversed the MeTC Decision and ordered So to pay Food Fest the reimbursement for rentals paid for the months of July and August 2000 in the amount of PhP32,000.00, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
The CA reversed the RTC’s ruling in its Decision, holding that Food Fest’s obligation to pay rent was not extinguished upon its failure to secure permits to operate. Thus, it ordered Food Fest to pay So the unpaid rentals from August 2000 until March 2001, temperate damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal, docketed as G.R. Nos. 183628 and 183670. The Court ruled in favor of So, affirmed with modification the CA Decision, and imposed in favor of So liquidated damages and attorney’s fees, both in the amount of 25% of the total sum due. In a Resolution, the Court modified the Decision, and clarified that So is entitled to, and not liable for, the 25% attorney’s fees.
After the entry of the Court’s Decision on March 16, 2011, So lost no time in filing a Motion for
Execution with the MeTC. Food Fest filed a Reply with Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Motion for Execution, which the MeTC granted. When the records of the case were already in the MeTC’s possession, So again filed a Motion for Execution, which the MeTC granted.
The MeTC refused to include interest in the judgment amount and ruled that the Court’s Decision was silent as to the 12% interest per annum and penalty charge of 1% per month for the months subsequent to the due date of the rents.
So filed a Petition for Certiorari with Branch 59, RTC, Makati City. However, it dismissed the Petition. So once more elevated the case to the CA, which held that the imposition of legal interest upon the total judgment award should be included, despite it not being stated in the fallo of the Decisions of the Court and the CA.
So then filed a Motion to Implement Writ of Execution with the MeTC, which declared that it could no longer order the execution of the Court’s Decision as the life of the Writ of Execution that was issued in January 2013 had already expired.
So again appealed the case to Branch 147, RTC, Makati City. When So appeared before the RTC-Branch 147 to attend the December 1, 2020 status hearing, RTC-Branch 147 suddenly informed him that it had already rendered a Resolution which dismissed his appeal and held that a final and executory judgment may only be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry.
The CA dismissed the Petition outright on technicalities, particularly, on the following grounds: (1) the Petition did not include the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; and (2) So did not attach the copies of the material pleadings and documents that would support the allegations in the Petition before the CA, apart from the assailed RTC Resolution. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA gravely erred in dismissing the Petition for
Review filed by So under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court Decides
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari. Food Fest Land, Inc. is ordered to pay petitioner or his heirs the following amounts:
- Unpaid rentals in the total amount of PhP140,800.00;
- Accrued penalty charges on the unpaid rentals in the total amount of PhP1,408.00;
- Liquidated damages in the amount of 25% of the total unpaid rentals and penalties due as of March 16, 2011, in the amount of PHP117,335.35;
- Attorney’s fees in the amount of PhP117,335.35; and
- Costs of suit.
The Court ruled that petitioner’s failure to strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 42, Section 2 of the Rules of Court is excusable. A strict application of the rules will result in undue prejudice to petitioner, who, despite being the judgment creditor in the Ejectment Case, still has not been paid to this day after almost fourteen (14) years since the Court rendered its Resolution in G.R. Nos. 183628 and 183670. On the other hand, a relaxation of the rules will not unjustly prejudice respondent as the losing party and judgment debtor in the Ejectment Case.
As correctly argued by petitioner before the CA, the 15-day period within which to appeal the
RTC Resolution had not yet lapsed or commenced. The Court agreed with So that he was placed in a peculiar situation, in light of the RTC’s failure to validly serve the Resolution, rendering him unable to allege the material dates in his Petition for Review.
Nonetheless, the requirement of indicating the material dates in the petition is separate from the requirement that the petition be timely filed, as both must be complied with. Considering that the Petition before the CA did not include a statement of material dates, it cannot be faulted for citing non-compliance with the rule as a ground to dismiss the appeal.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.