ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138571. September 11, 2000]

MERCURY DRUG CORP. vs. CA., et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 11 2000.

G.R. No. 138571 (Mercury Drug Corporation vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals and the Spouses Eduardo and Carmen Yee.)

This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein respondents of the Decision of this Court dated July 13, 2000, which reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed their Petition for Relief from Judgment for being filed out of time.

In support of their motion, the respondents present the following arguments for consideration:

"I. THAT THE PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WAS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 38 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT;

II. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE THE OWNERS OF THE BUILDING;

III. THAT THE DOCTRINE IN PEOPLE'S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION VS. TIONGCO APPLIES IN THE INSTANT CASE" 1 Motion for Reconsideration 3-4.

After a careful review of the arguments, we resolve to deny the motion.

This Court, in its decision dated July 13, 2000, has already passed upon the respondents' arguments. Respondents have not presented any new legal argument in their motion for reconsideration, which would convince us that a reversal of the aforementioned decision is warranted.

It bears stress that the fact that the lower court erroneously declared that the petitioner was the owner of the property subject of this case would not change our herein ruling. In our Decision, we stated that:

"Parenthetically, it is noted that in its decision, the Court of Appeals stated that the finding of ownership was a pivotal consideration for the trial court's ruling to the effect that the YEES were bound to accept low rentals because the building which was supposed to be constructed by MERCURY would ultimately be owned by the YEES. However, a reading of the trial court's decision shows that the primary basis for its ruling was that there was no devaluation in currency, which would entitle the YEES to a reformation of their contract. On the contrary, the trial court, in granting the YEES an increase in the stipulated rentals contained in their contract with MERCURY based its ruling on the "meteoric boom" that the City of Cagayan de Oro was experiencing which equity and human justice could not ignore. Moreover, MERCURY did not show unwillingness to the said adjustments in order to maintain good and harmonious relations with the YEES. Thus, even assuming arguendo that the YEES' petition for relief is given due course, the judgment of the trial court denying the YEES' principal prayer to reform the contract on the ground of the devaluation of the currency is not affected for the reason that the finding of the trial court as to whether it is Mercury or the YEES who built the building is irrelevant to the determination of whether there was indeed a devaluation in the currency." 2 Rollo , 279-280.

We reiterate our finding that the lower court denied respondents' complaint for reformation on the ground that there was no legal basis to warrant reformation and not on the basis of the ownership of the subject property.

Respondents' insistence that they were denied due process since the trial court did not conduct any hearing fails to persuade us. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard.3 Vda. De Chua vs. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 33, 49 [1998]. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings.4 Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 316, 338 [1988]. In the present case, the respondents were able to successfully file their complaint and memorandum together with their respective annexes, which were the basis of the lower court in deciding the case. Moreover, the respondents through their lawyer agreed to dispense with trial and submit the case for decision based on each party's respective memorandum.

WHEREFORE, the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is hereby DENIED with finality for lack of merit. No further pleadings will be entertained.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE