Case Digest (G.R. No. 107737)
Facts:
Petitioners Juan L. Perez, Luis Keh, Charlie Lee and Rosendo G. Tansinsin, Jr. appealed the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the Regional Trial Court's judgment in Civil Case No. 5610-M concerning possession and operation of the Papaya Fishpond in Sto. Rosario, Hagonoy, Bulacan, after private respondent Luis Crisostomo asserted he took over operation under a pakiao-buwis arrangement in 1978, paid rent and improved the pond but was deprived of possession in 1979; intervenor Vicente Asuncion claimed co-usufructuary rights. The trial court awarded Crisostomo recovery of deposits, damages and other relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed; petitioners sought review in this Court.
Issues:
- Does the principle of res judicata bar the present action because of prior rulings in CA-G.R. No. 10415 and G.R. No. 64354?
- Was the Court of Appeals' decision void for prematurity because intervenor failed to furnish petitioners a copy of his brief?
- Was private respondent a valid assignee or sub-lessee entitled to possession and to recover for improvements and damages despite the lease prohibition against subleasing?
Ruling:
The Court DENIED the petition for review and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals' decision insofar as it directed release of the deposited amounts (P128,572.00 and P123,993.85) to private respondent and required Crisostomo to pay petitioner Perez rental for June 1979–January 1980 less P21,428.00; the Court MODIFIED the judgment by (a) ordering petitioner Luis Keh to pay private respondent P486,562.25 with six percent interest from September 6, 1989, and (b) making petitioners jointly and severally liable for moral damages of P50,000.00, exemplary damages of P20,000.00, and attorneys' fees of P10,000.00.
Ratio:
The Court held that the prior decision in CA-G.R. No. 10415 involved interlocutory relief (lifting of a restraining order) and not a final judgment on the merits, so res judicata did not apply. Failure of the intervenor to furnish a brief did not void the appellate decision because intervention pro interesse suo proceeded independently and the Court of Appeals afforded corrective measures; factual disputes on possession and the parties' credibility are not reviewable in a certiorari under Rule 45. Petitioners were estopped by their acceptance of rental payments (as reflected in the June 6, 1978 receipt) from denying Crisostomo's status, and, because Keh violated the lease prohibition on subleasing, Article 1168 rendered him liable for undoing the prohibited act at his expense, entitling Crisostomo to recovery for improvements; willful, deceitful conduct warranted awards under Article 21 and exemplary damages under Article 2229, and attorneys' fees were proper for compelled litigation.
Doctrine:
- A prior interlocutory order lifting a restraining order is not a final judgment on the merits and thus does not trigger res judicata.
- (Get Pro to unlock 6 more doctrines)