Case Digest (G.R. No. 221062)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 221062)
Facts:
Elizabeth Sy‑Vargas v. The Estate of Rolando Ogsos, Sr. and Rolando Ogsos, Jr., G.R. No. 221062, October 05, 2016, Supreme Court First Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.In February 1994, Rolando Ogsos, Sr. (lessee) and the heirs of Fermina Pepico (lessors), which included petitioner Elizabeth Sy‑Vargas and her sister Kathryn T. Sy, entered into a lease covering some 23 hectares of agricultural land in Maaslum Manjuyod, Negros Oriental. The lease initially required payment of lease rentals in kind (230 piculs or 290.95 lkg. of centrifugal sugar per crop year), was extended in June 1996 through crop year 2003–2004 because of lessee improvements, and was amended in December 1996 to require P150,000.00 cash per crop year beginning 1996–1997.
Petitioner and Kathryn contended that lease rentals for crop years 1994–1998 remained unpaid and, on April 27, 2000, filed a complaint for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch 36 (Civil Case No. 12708). They did not claim rentals for crop year 1999–2000, alleging respondents had already abandoned the premises. Summons was served in May 2000; respondents filed an answer only in December 2002. The RTC declared respondents in default (March 7, 2003), but the Court of Appeals (CA) granted respondents’ certiorari petition (CA‑G.R. SP No. 79463) and remanded to admit the answer so respondents could be heard.
Respondents counterclaimed, alleging that petitioner and Kathryn unlawfully took possession of the leased premises and harvested sugarcane in December 1998, preventing creditors (who had been allowed to harvest to settle loans) from doing so, and that this dispossession caused respondents to lose profits from crop years 1999–2004. After procedural skirmishes — including an RTC dismissal without prejudice for lack of a Certificate of Non‑Forum Shopping (Nov. 9, 2005), subsequent hearings on the counterclaim, petitioner’s and Kathryn’s failure to appear at pre‑trial, and the RTC’s allowance of ex‑parte presentation of respondents’ evidence (June 28, 2006) — the RTC, in a July 2, 2007 Decision, granted respondents’ counterclaim and awarded P10,391,981.76 for lost sugar and molasses production, plus moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Petitioner and Kathryn appealed to the CA. The CA, in a February 28, 2014 Decision, affirmed the RTC’s award for lost profits but deleted moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for lack of proof of bad faith or fraud; the CA further sustained that the counterclaim was compulsory and that dismissal of the main action would not automatically bar the counterclaim where the plaintiff’s fault caused dismissal. Petitioner’s counsel received the CA Decision March 14, 2014; a motion for reconsideration was filed March 31, 2014 and denied by the CA as late (Resolution dated October 1, 2015). Kathryn did not pursue further appeal. Petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging primarily the CA’s timeliness ruling, the characterization of the counterclaim, and the entitlement to respondents’ counterclaim award.
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals filed out of time?
- Is respondents’ counterclaim for damages compulsory (thus not requiring payment of docket fees) or permissive (requiring docket fees)?
- Are respondents entitled to the monetary award on their counterclaim for lost profits, and if so, should any amounts be deducted?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)