Case Digest (G.R. No. 126640)
Facts:
Spouses Marcelo B. Arenas and Anita T. Arenas v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Spouses Conrado S. Rojas and Rosalina Bauzon Rojas, G.R. No. 126640, November 23, 2000, promulgated May 27, 2002, the Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Rosalina B. Rojas co-owned a two‑story building in Calasiao, Pangasinan. In about 1970 she entered into a month‑to‑month verbal lease with petitioner Marcelo B. Arenas for one ground‑floor stall, which Arenas used as the "Tandoc‑Arenas Optical Clinic." In 1990 respondent Rojas decided to demolish and reconstruct the building and purported to terminate the lease, serving petitioners a notice of termination on November 19, 1990 and demanding vacation on or before January 2, 1991; petitioners refused to vacate.
On June 18, 1991 respondent Rojas filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calasiao Civil Case No. 658 for unlawful detainer and damages seeking possession, permission to demolish/renovate, and litigation indemnity. Arenas answered on June 28, 1991 and counterclaimed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The MTC, on August 29, 1991, ordered Arenas to vacate and awarded litigation expenses and attorney’s fees; the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dagupan City (Branch 44), denied Arenas’s appeal and affirmed the MTC decision (docketed Civil Case No. D‑9996).
Before receiving a copy of the MTC/RTC decision, petitioners on September 2, 1991 filed with the RTC, Pangasinan, Lingayen Civil Case No. 16890 for "Damages, Certiorari with a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order" against respondents, alleging post‑filing acts (removal of petitioners’ signboard, dumping gravel and sand, fencing the stall, cutting electric connection) that damaged their business and caused loss of income and moral damages. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the MTC from hearing Civil Case No. 658 and directed respondents to cease disturbing petitioners’ stall.
Respondents moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 16890 on the ground of multiplicity of suits; the RTC denied the motion, held it had jurisdiction, and after trial (finding a tacit renewal of the lease and malicious filing of the ejectment case) awarded petitioners damages, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CV No. 40470).
On June 10, 1996 the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed Civil Case No. 16890, reasoning that petitioners’ claims were compulsory counterclaims to Civil Case No. 658 because...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were the causes of action pleaded in Civil Case No. 16890 compulsory counterclaims that should have been raised in Civil Case No. 6...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)