Case Digest (G.R. No. 148174)
Facts:
The case involves Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation (petitioner) and the Honorable Estela Perlas-Bernabe, in her official capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 142, along with Gary Cruz (respondents). The events leading to this case began on January 5, 1998, when the construction of the Fort Bonifacio-Kalayaan-Buendia Flyover Project II commenced in Makati City. This construction significantly impacted local businesses, including the medical clinic owned by Gary Cruz, a doctor of medicine. Due to the construction activities, Cruz experienced a decline in patients as they were deterred by the construction-related hazards and the lack of nearby parking.
On September 25, 1998, Cruz filed a complaint with the Office of the Barangay Chairman of Pinagkaisahan, Makati City, regarding the adverse effects of the construction on his business. The Barangay Chairman sent letters to the petitioner on October 2 and 8, 1998, urging th...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 148174)
Facts:
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation, a domestic corporation responsible for the Fort Bonifacio-Kalayaan-Buendia Flyover Project II.
- Respondents:
- Hon. Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 142.
- Gary Cruz, a doctor of medicine who operates a Medical Clinic and Industrial Service Office located near the construction site.
Construction Project
- The construction of the Fort Bonifacio-Kalayaan-Buendia Flyover in Makati City began on January 5, 1998.
- The construction activities adversely affected nearby businesses, including Gary Cruz's medical clinic.
Impact on Gary Cruz's Clinic
- Patients and clients stopped visiting Cruz's clinic due to welding flames from the construction site.
- Parking spaces near the clinic became unavailable, further discouraging clients.
Initial Complaints and Demands
- On September 25, 1998, Cruz filed a complaint with the Office of the Barangay Chairman of Pinagkaisahan, Makati City.
- The Barangay Chairman advised the petitioner to address the issue, but no action was taken.
- On November 17, 1998, Cruz sent a demand letter to the petitioner, seeking P2,000.00 per day for loss of income. The petitioner refused to pay.
Legal Proceedings
- Cruz filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner in the RTC of Makati, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-521.
- The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing lack of cause of action and failure to implead the State as a necessary party.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and required the petitioner to file an answer.
- Instead of filing an answer, the petitioner filed an urgent omnibus motion for reconsideration, which was also denied.
- The petitioner eventually filed an answer but later filed another motion to dismiss, alleging failure to implead the contractor as an indispensable party. This motion was also denied.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition with the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's refusal to dismiss the complaint.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, and the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issue:
- Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss the complaint.
- Whether the petitioner's remedy of filing a petition for certiorari and prohibition was appropriate.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing that the petitioner's procedural errors and improper use of certiorari as a remedy were not justified. The petitioner should have proceeded to trial and awaited a final judgment before appealing.