Case Digest (G.R. No. 97805)
Facts:
Nilo H. Raymundo v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Sixteenth Division, Hon. Judge, RTC, Br. 133, Makati, Metro Manila and Galleria de Magallanes Association, Inc., G.R. No. 97805, September 02, 1992, Supreme Court Second Division, Nocon, J., writing for the Court.
On July 5, 1989 the administrator of Galleria de Magallanes Condominium discovered that petitioner Nilo Raymundo, owner-occupant of Unit AB-122, had installed glass on his balcony allegedly in violation of Article IV, Section 3(d) of the Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions, which forbids alterations that impair the external appearance or structural integrity of the building. The condominium administrator reported the violation to the Board of Directors at a special meeting on July 8, 1989, and the Association sent a demand letter dated July 12, 1989 requesting removal of the installation.
When petitioner refused to remove the installation, private respondent Galleria de Magallanes Association, Inc. filed a complaint for mandatory injunction against Raymundo on February 21, 1990 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 133, docketed as Civil Case No. 90-490. Petitioner moved for extension of time and for production of documents on March 12, 1990; those motions were granted by the RTC on March 16, 1990. Instead of filing an answer, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 23, 1990 contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the only pecuniary claim was P10,000 as attorney’s fees and thus the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) had exclusive original jurisdiction under B.P. 129, Sec. 33.
The RTC, through an Order dated June 1, 1990 (Judge Buenaventura J. Guerrero), denied the Motion to Dismiss, and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated June 29, 1990. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari and prohibition with restraining order and preliminary injunction; the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 22231, ponente Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr.) dismissed the petition by decision promulgated March 11, 1991. Petitioner then filed the present petition with the Supreme Court seeking certiorari and prohibition with restraining ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to hear Civil Case No. 90-490 despite the incidental pecuniary claim for attorney’s fees of P10,000 which petitioner contends places jurisdiction in the Metropolitan Trial Court under B.P. 129, Sec. 33?
- Was the complaint properly considered a suit for mandatory injunction so as to affect ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)