Case Digest (G.R. No. 139278)
Facts:
Clement L. Cucueco v. Court of Appeals, Golden L International, Orlando Lapid, Francisco Lapid, Diosdado Lapid, Lea Productions, Inc., and Emilia S. Blas, G.R. No. 139278, October 25, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Clement L. Cucueco alleged that in 1985 he entered into a joint venture with Golden L Films International and its owners the Lapid brothers to co‑produce the film Jimbo, contributing a total of P838,884.98. The parties agreed that Cucueco’s investment would be repaid first and that net profits would be shared pro rata. Proceeds from Jimbo were allegedly reinvested in the production of Maruso. Cucueco claimed that Golden Films sold Maruso to Lea Productions, Inc. (represented by Emilia Blas) without his knowledge or consent; when LEA failed to pay in full, Golden Films withheld delivery. At Golden Films’ request, Cucueco paid the film’s processing fee to SQ Laboratories and obtained the master copy and prints; he refused subsequent demands to deliver the film, invoking co‑ownership and Section 18 of P.D. 49.
LEA filed a separate suit for specific performance and damages (Civil Case No. 87‑39732) and impleaded Cucueco; Cucueco filed Civil Case No. 87‑39888 for declaration of nullity of contract, torts and damages, with preliminary injunction and attachment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila consolidated the two cases and on June 5, 1987 issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining LEA and Golden Films from exhibiting, distributing or claiming ownership of Maruso and ordered a writ of attachment (the trial court’s order described the assets to be attached and conditioned the attachment on bond).
LEA and Emilia Blas sought certiorari relief with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 13069; on April 27, 1988 the CA affirmed the trial court order with modification (annulling the writ of preliminary attachment). The CA rulings were brought to the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 84269‑70, which in a Resolution of July 12, 1989 denied review, and the cases were remanded for further proceedings.
After remand, Cucueco moved for summary judgment in Civil Case No. 87‑39888. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cucueco, declaring him co‑owner and co‑producer of Maruso, voiding the sale to LEA, ordering delivery of all copies to Cucueco, awarding actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees, and directing LEA and Blas to turn over profits. The trial court separated that case from Civil Case No. 87‑39732.
Respondents appealed the summary judgment to the Court of Appeals by ordinary appeal (Notice of Appeal filed October 7, 1991). Petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the issues raised were pure questions of law and thus the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45 to this Court. The CA resolved in an October 7, 1992 Resolution that it would consider the Motion to Dismiss in its decision, but the CA decision of March 9, 1998 (CA‑G.R. CV No. 35911) reversed and set aside the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the records for further proceeding...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the mode of appeal (an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals) proper when the appeal raised only pure questions of law?
- Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment and properly apply the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine in declaring petitioner co‑owner/co‑producer of the film *Marus...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)