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...

Facts:

Parties and Project Background

• Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation (petitioner) is a domestic corporation responsible for the Fort Bonifacio-Kalayaan-Buendia Flyover Project II in Makati City.
• Gary Cruz (private respondent) is a medical doctor whose clinic and industrial service office are located at No. 3434 Limbo St., corner Kalayaan Avenue, Makati City.
• Estela Perlas-Bernabe, in her official capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 142, is also a respondent.

Effects of the Construction

• The construction, which commenced on January 5, 1998, adversely affected nearby business establishments, including the respondent’s medical clinic.
• Patients were deterred from visiting the clinic due to safety concerns (e.g., welding flames) and the inconvenience of parking limitations caused by the construction.

Pre-Litigation Communications and Initial Complaint

• On September 25, 1998, Gary Cruz filed a complaint with the Office of the Barangay Chairman of Pinagkaisahan, Makati City regarding the adverse effects of the construction.
• Letters from the barangay officials dated October 2 and 8, 1998 advised the petitioner to take appropriate remedial action, advice which went unheeded by the petitioner.
• On November 17, 1998, respondent sent petitioner a letter demanding a daily payment of P2,000.00 as compensation for loss of income due to the construction disruptions.

Initiation of Litigation

• Following petitioner’s refusal to comply with the demand, respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 142, Makati City (Civil Case No. 99-521).
• Petitioner responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action and failure to implead the State as a real party in interest.
• The RTC denied petitioner’s initial motion to dismiss in an Order dated February 10, 2000, and required the filing of an answer.

Subsequent Motions and Procedural History

• Instead of filing a substantive answer immediately, petitioner submitted an urgent omnibus motion on February 28, 2000, seeking reconsideration of the RTC's Order, which was later denied on June 19, 2000.
• Petitioner then filed its answer on July 3, 2000.
• On August 16, 2000, petitioner filed another motion to dismiss, this time alleging respondent’s failure to implead the contractor as an indispensable party.
• The RTC denied the second motion to dismiss on September 19, 2000, and subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied.

Petition for Review on Certiorari

• Petitioner elevated the issue by filing a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition before the Court of Appeals, alleging that the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in denying its motion to dismiss.
• The Court of Appeals, on March 12, 2001, dismissed the petition, a ruling which petitioner unsuccessfully sought to have reconsidered.
• Ultimately, the petitioner sought review before the Supreme Court, contending that the RTC’s denial of its second motion to dismiss was procedurally and jurisprudentially flawed.

Issue:

Proper Remedy and Appealability

• Whether the denial of the motion to dismiss constitutes a final/interlocutory order that can be challenged via a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition.
• Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to address the alleged grave abuse of discretion or excess/lack of jurisdiction by the RTC in denying the motion to dismiss.

Procedural Validity of the Motion to Dismiss

• Whether the filing of the motion to dismiss after the filing of an answer (specifically, the motion filed on August 16, 2000) complies with the provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Whether the alleged failure to implead an indispensable party (the contractor) is a ground sufficient to compel dismissal of the action or, alternatively, a matter to be remedied later in the proceedings.

Judicial Discretion and Abuse Thereof

• Whether the RTC exercised its inherent power appropriately in denying the petitioner's motions to dismiss.
• Whether the alleged errors in the RTC’s procedural handling amount to a grave abuse of discretion justifying intervention by the higher courts.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)