Case Digest (G.R. No. 253428)
Facts:
Guerrero Estate Development Corporation v. Leviste & Guerrero Realty Corporation and the Heirs of Conrad C. Leviste, G.R. No. 253428, February 16, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from a parcel of land in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque City originally owned by Guillerma Santos, subsequently inherited by her heirs, who formed Guerrero Estate Development Corporation (GEDCOR). A portion of the land was developed under a joint venture and, as part of the development, GEDCOR allocated a 1,506 sqm lot on which a warehouse was constructed pursuant to a June 2, 1987 joint venture contract between GEDCOR and Conrad Leviste. Leviste completed the warehouse, later incorporated Leviste & Guerrero Realty Corporation (LGRC), and LGRC leased out the warehouse; under the parties’ arrangement 45% of rental income was remitted to GEDCOR and 55% to Leviste.
Remittances of GEDCOR’s 45% share ceased in June 2009. GEDCOR sent demand letters (2009, 2011) and, after LGRC failed to remit, filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 274, Parañaque City (Civil Case No. 12-003) for fixing of period under Article 1197 of the Civil Code, collection of money and/or accounting. During pre-trial respondents admitted that LGRC had historically remitted 45% to GEDCOR and that LGRC’s board resolved on July 16, 2009 to stop distribution.
GEDCOR filed a separate Motion to Deposit Rentals in Court seeking to have LGRC deposit GEDCOR’s claimed 45% share. On February 19, 2018, the RTC granted the Motion and ordered defendants to deposit P5,936,461.65 (GEDCOR’s 45% share from June 1, 2009 to September 30, 2015) and to deposit thereafter the 45% monthly share until final resolution; the RTC denied reconsideration on September 6, 2018. After Leviste’s death his heirs were substituted as respondents. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC’s deposit orders.
In a June 26, 2019 decision (and August 24, 2020 resolution denying reconsideration), the CA granted respondents’ Rule 65 petition, finding grave abuse of discretion: the deposit order was tantamount to preliminary attachment requiring strict compliance with ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in granting GEDCOR’s Motion to Depo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)