Case Digest (G.R. No. 79564)
Facts:
Aurora B. Camacho v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Judge Ruben T. Reyes, Incumbent Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, Branch I, and Angelino M. Banzon, G.R. No. 79564, November 24, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Aurora Camacho (plaintiff) filed Civil Case No. 424 for forcible entry in the Municipal Court of Balanga, Bataan on November 18, 1969 against Silvestre Tuazon; she was then represented by private respondent Angelino M. Banzon as counsel of record. The complaint alleged that Tuazon, an agricultural lessee of Lot No. 261 (T-10,185), had surrendered the land by an “Agreement With Voluntary Surrender” dated August 22, 1968, but thereafter re-entered the lot and thereby deprived plaintiffs of possession.
After trial the municipal court rendered a decision on March 1, 1971 in favor of the plaintiffs ordering the defendant to vacate. Tuazon appealed to the then Court of First Instance of Bataan where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3512, Branch I (Judge Abraham P. Vera) and tried de novo because no stenographic notes had been taken in the municipal court.
While the trial de novo was in progress, petitioner dismissed Banzon as counsel. On December 17, 1973 Banzon filed a complaint in intervention against petitioner and defendant, claiming contractual attorney’s fees allegedly agreed to be paid in kind (5,000 square meters of Lot No. 261 for negotiating transfer of the market site, plus 1,000 square meters for other cases), asserted purchases of portions of the lot (80 sq. m. from petitioner and 800 sq. m. from third parties), and sought delivery of those portions, rentals, additional fees and litigation expenses. Banzon nevertheless joined in praying for ejectment of the defendant.
On August 14, 1977 petitioner and Tuazon executed a compromise agreement, and the trial court entered a judgment on compromise dated August 31, 1977 described as a “Partial Decision” in Civil Case No. 3512. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint in intervention on the ground that the trial court lost jurisdiction after termination of the principal action; the trial court denied the motion in an order dated March 16, 1979. Petitioner renewed the motion on September 3, 1983 (adding that the intervention was filed late because the case was on appeal), but the trial court again denied the motion and denied reconsideration (orders of August 24, 1986 and October 14, 1986).
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in this Court on November 4, 1986, which the Court referred to the Court of Appeals on November 18, 1986. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated February 26, 1987 (penalty and resolution penned by Justice Gloria C. Paras, with concurrence of Justices Campos, Jr. and Limcaoco), dismissed petitioner’s petition and held the intervention timely and that the judg...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the complaint in intervention by private respondent timely when filed during a trial de novo in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court), within the meaning of Section 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court?
- Did the judgment on compromise (denominated a “Partial Decision”) terminate the principal action and thereby deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the ancillary complaint in intervention?
- Was petitioner estopped by laches from assailing the trial court’s den...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)