Case Digest (G.R. No. 112660)
Facts:
Spouses Antonio Chua and Virginia Chua v. Court of Appeals and Rufino Co, G.R. No. 112660, March 14, 1995, Supreme Court First Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are the spouses Antonio and Virginia Chua; private respondent is Rufino Co; the case reached the Court by a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.Rufino Co leased the second floor of a Binondo, Manila building where he conducted a garments-related business; the Chua spouses operated a Jollibee Yumburger on the ground floor. On 27 September 1984 Co filed a complaint with the Manila City Engineer’s Industrial Safety Division alleging that the Chuas’ installation of air-conditioning units, a water tank and exhaust fans obstructed and caused heat and noise on the second floor. The City Engineer instructed the Chuas to stop installation pending a permit, and the Secretary to the Mayor, upon recommendation, ordered the immediate closure of the Chuas’ establishment.
The Secretary to the Mayor later issued a 30-day “Temporary Lifting Order” allowing the Chuas to resume operations, subject to verification by the Bureau of Permits of alleged corrective measures. Aggrieved, Co filed an original action for mandamus and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary and seeking enforcement of the closure order and damages.
The RTC initially issued a temporary restraining order enjoining implementation of the 30-day lifting order but subsequently lifted the TRO after an ocular inspection, finding that the leased premises were not then physically occupied except for an overseer. The Chuas answered, denied wrongdoing, filed a counterclaim for damages, and asserted that permits showing corrective measures had been issued prior to Co’s complaint. Public respondents likewise denied liability, stating permits were issued after verification.
On 18 April 1991 the RTC, Branch 26, Manila, dismissed Co’s complaint and awarded the Chuas actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29391 affirmed the dismissal of Co’s complaint but deleted the award of damages to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was private respondent Rufino Co shown to have acted with bad faith or ill-motive in filing his complaint such that petitioners are entitled to damages for malicious pros...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)