ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 135321. April 27, 2005]

GEN. ELEVATOR vs. VILLANUEVA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 27 2005.

G.R. No. 135321 (General Elevator & Escalator Corporation & Edgardo B. Limcaco, Jr. vs. The Honorable Romulo SG. Villanueva, Presiding Judge of the RTC, 5^th Judicial Region, Ligao, Albay, Branch 12 and Spouses Alfonso and Anacleta Bichara.)

Assailed in the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is the Order dated July 22, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Ligao, Albay in Civil Case No. 1965 denying petitioners' motion to dismiss the complaint for sum of money with damages filed against them by private respondents. Petitioners alleged that the trial court issued the Order with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Also assailed by petitioners is the Order dated August 16, 1998 denying their motion for reconsideration.

In their complaint in Civil Case No. 1965, spouses Alfonso and Anacleta Bichara, respondents, alleged that they contracted the General Elevator and Escalator Corporation and Edgardo B. Limcaco, Jr., petitioners, to install three (3) units of Fuji Slimline Escalators to the Bichara Tri-Cinema in Legaspi City at the price of P6,500,000.00. Without their (respondents') knowledge, petitioners added to the original contract a stipulation providing for an additional amount of P2,677,850.55 as currency adjustment fees. Respondents demanded the delivery of the escalators under the original contract price. However, petitioners refused delivery unless respondents pay the contract price with the currency adjustment fees, or the total amount of P2,677,850.55. This prompted respondents to cancel and terminate the contract and demand the return of all the payments they have made in the total amount of P5,150,000.00, plus consequential damages. But petitioners failed to heed respondents' demand.

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss respondents' complaint on the ground that venue was improperly laid, contending that the action should have been filed with any of the Branches of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City pursuant to the provision of their agreement which states:

"In case of litigation, purchaser submits himself to the Courts of Makati and to pay 25% of the agreed amount claimed as attorney's fees and of liquidated damages plus cost and all other legal expenses incurred by General Elevator & Escalator Corporation."

On July 22, 1998, the trial court denied petitioners' motion to dismiss, thus the instant petition. Petitioners alleged therein that when the parties have agreed in writing that actions arising from their contract shall be filed with a particular court, such actions cannot be filed with any other court, even if it is in the place where one of the parties resides or where the property involved is located.

On the other hand, respondents commented that since the agreement does not state "exclusive venue," the parties did not intend to limit or restrict the venue of their litigation at Makati City only. Thus, the filing of their complaint with the RTC of Ligao, Albay is proper.

On November 9, 2000, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss informing the Court that the parties have already amicably settled the case, attaching therewith a copy of the "Joint Motion to Dismiss Based on Compromise Agreement" submitted to the trial court and alleging that Civil Case No. 1965 had already become moot and academic by virtue of the said Agreement.

Indeed, the parties having entered into a compromise agreement, the controversy between them ended. We have held that where the issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, thus rendering the resolution of the same of no practical value. ^[1] cralaw Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. Thus, the well-settled rule that courts will not determine a moot question. ^[2] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioners is GRANTED.The instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Garcia vs. Commission on Elections, 258 SCRA 754 (1996); Enrile vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, 428 SCRA 472 (2004); Desaville, Jr. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 128310, August 13, 2004.

^[2] cralaw Cole vs. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 692 (2000).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011