Case Digest (G.R. No. 164459)
Facts:
Limitless Potentials, Inc., G.R. No. 164459, April 24, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review under Rule 45 assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated 16 September 2003 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 73463 and its Resolution dated 8 July 2004 that denied reconsideration.On 12 October 1995 Digital Networks Communications and Computers, Inc. contracted with petitioner Limitless Potentials, Inc. (LPI) to erect a billboard for one year, with specified rental payments and a three‑month deposit arrangement. The erected billboard was later destroyed by unknown persons, the contract was treated as terminated, and Digital sued LPI in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati, Civil Case No. 55170, seeking return of rental deposits.
On 18 June 1997 LPI filed a Third‑Party Complaint in MeTC Civil Case No. 55170 against Macgraphics Carranz International Corporation and respondents Bishop Crisostomo Yalung and Atty. Roy Manuel Villasor, alleging the private respondents maliciously caused the dismantling of the billboard and seeking damages. The MeTC denied respondents’ motions to dismiss the Third‑Party Complaint in Orders dated 25 August and 10 October 1997.
Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, which on 6 February 1998 issued a writ of preliminary injunction (conditioned on a P10,000 bond) enjoining the MeTC from hearing the Third‑Party Complaint. The RTC thereafter dismissed respondents’ certiorari petition on 28 April 2000 and dissolved the injunction; respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on 26 June 2000.
LPI moved for judgment against the injunction bond, asserting attorney’s fees (P74,375) and moral damages (P1,000,000). The RTC denied the motion on 3 April 2002 and denied reconsideration on 6 August 2002. LPI then filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals contesting the RTC orders; the CA initially dismissed for lack of proof of authority of the filer but later reinstated the petition and, on 16 September 2003, dismissed it for lack of merit and denied reconsideration on 8 July 2004.
LPI brought the present Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court. Its principal contentions were that malice or bad faith is not a requisite to recover on an injunction bond and that attorney’s fees, litigation costs and costs of delay are recoverable from the bond. Respondents countered that LPI’s petition should be dismissed for defective certification on non‑forum shopping and argued that the injunction ope...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for review subject to dismissal for defective Certification on Non‑Forum Shopping under Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules?
- Is malice or bad faith a necessary element to recover on an injunction bond?
- Do attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and costs of delay fall within the coverage of an injunction bond?
- Did petitioner substantiate that it actually sustained damages by reason of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)