ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 160753.� January 24, 2005]
BARNES vs. PADILLA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 24 2005 .
G.R. NO. 160753 (Jimmy L. Barnes, a.k.a. James L. Barnes vs. HON. Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla, Presiding Judge, RTC, BR. 215, Quezon City and Teresita C. Reyes, Elizabeth C. Pasion, Ma. Elsa C. Garcia, Imelda C. Trillo, Ma. Elena C. Dinglasan and Ricardo P. Crisostomo.)
R E S O L U T I O N
This refers to private respondents' "Motion for Reconsideration of the 30 September 2004 Decision and to Refer the Matter to the Court En Banc." [1] cralaw Private respondents seek the reversal of the Decision [2] cralaw of the Second Division of this Court, dated September 30, 2004. The decision set aside the Resolution, dated November 17, 2003, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 69573 denying petitioner's manifestation and motion to admit his motion for reconsideration; and, reversed and set aside the Decision dated August 18, 2003 of the CA, which affirmed the Resolution dated April 20, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 215, Quezon City (Branch 215 for brevity) in Civil Case No. Q-99-37219, dismissing the complaint for specific performance on the ground of forum-shopping. The Court also remanded the case to Branch 215 with instructions that the trial court shall proceed with the case with all deliberate dispatch.
For a proper perspective, the factual antecedents of the assailed decision of this Court need to be revisited. Thus:
Private respondents filed a complaint for ejectment before the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 34, Quezon City (MeTC for brevity) against
petitioner for non-payment of rentals. Subsequently, the MeTC rendered
judgment, finding that: petitioner entered into a Contract of Lease with private
respondents' late mother, Natividad Crisostomo, whereby the latter leased to
the former the subject property from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997 at P60,000.00
per month; in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated December 5, 1995,
petitioner and Natividad extended the term of lease until December 31, 2007,
whereby the petitioner has the obligation to pay lease rentals and at the same
time, he is given the option to purchase the disputed property; and petitioner
has not been paying rentals since September 1996. Consequently, the MeTC
ordered petitioner to vacate the disputed premises. Petitioner appealed to the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 227, Quezon City (Branch 227 for brevity).
Meanwhile, petitioner filed before Branch 215 a complaint for
specific performance with damages. He prayed that judgment be rendered in his
favor ordering private respondents to abide with the MOA executed on December
5, 1995 between him and the late Natividad with respect to all the terms and
conditions of the contract to sell a 403.41-square meter portion of the subject
property, the payment of P60,000.00 a month as lease and P80,000.00,
as amortization payment for the sale.
Subsequently, Branch 227 set aside the MeTC decision and dismissed the case without prejudice on the ground that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over the case since it is not for ejectment but for specific performance of contract, cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in its original and exclusive jurisdiction. When their motion for reconsideration was denied, private respondents filed a petition for review with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 55949. [3] cralaw
In the meantime, pending trial in Branch 215, private respondents moved therein for outright dismissal of the complaint for specific performance on the ground of forum-shopping in view of the pendency of the appeal on the ejectment case with the CA. Branch 215 dismissed the complaint for specific performance.
When his motion for reconsideration was denied by Branch 215, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69573. The CA dismissed the petition ruling that petitioner committed forum shopping in view of the pendency of the appeal on the ejectment case. Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it on the ground that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. Petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion to Admit Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration with Leave of Court but the CA also denied it on the ground that the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period.
After a second hard-look on the facts of the case, the Court notes that on appeal from the MeTC judgment ordering petitioner to vacate the premises on ground of non-payment of rentals, Branch 227 set aside the MeTC decision declaring that the case is actually a specific performance case, not ejectment. This Regional Trial Court decision was appealed to the CA and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 55949. It is significant to note that this appeal is filed ahead of the appeal in CA-G.R. SP No. 69573 where, at that time, the issue of forum-shopping on the part of petitioner is pending.
Inasmuch as the issue in CA-G.R. SP No. 55949 is whether the action instituted in the MeTC is an ejectment suit or a specific performance case, prudence dictates that this Court should ascertain whether said issue has been finally resolved. However, records and pleadings in the present case neither revealed the present status of CA-G.R. SP No. 55949 nor did parties raise or discuss its relevance.
In view of the foregoing, and for a full and proper disposition of the present motion, the Court resolves to REQUIRE the parties to inform this Court of the present status of CA-G.R. SP No. 55949, entitled, "Teresita C. Reyes, Elizabeth C. Pasion, Ma. Elsa C. Garcia, Imelda C. Trillo, Ricardo P. Crisostomo and Ma. Elena C. Dinglasan vs. Jimmy Barnes" and to discuss their respective positions on the significance of said case on the issues presently before the Court, within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 1034.
[2] cralaw Id., p. 1016.
[3] cralaw This petition was denied due course for failure to comply with the requirements on verification and certification on non-forum shopping. On private respondents' motion for reconsideration, the CA reinstated the petition. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the reinstatement of the petition. When this was denied by the CA, petitioner filed a petition for review with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 144533. On September 23, 2003, the Third Division of this Court, thru Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, denied the petition (Barnes vs. Reyes, 411 SCRA 540). The decision became final and executory. The CA Rollo was remanded to the CA on November 2004. As of January 17, 2005, the case is subject to raffle to a new ponente for decision (Justice Bernardo Ll. Salas, ponente of the questioned Resolution, retired on September 16, 2000).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
