Case Summary (G.R. No. 148174)
Facts of the Case
The construction of the flyover project commenced on January 5, 1998. Gary Cruz, the owner of a medical clinic located near the construction site, experienced a notable decline in patients due to disruptions caused by the construction. Fears regarding safety from welding flames and lost parking availability led to diminished business for Cruz. Following unsuccessful attempts to address these issues through the barangay level, Cruz filed a complaint on November 17, 1998, seeking damages of PHP 2,000 per day for loss of income due to the construction.
Procedural History
The case was initially brought before the RTC, with Cruz filing a complaint classified as Civil Case No. 99-521. Bonifacio Construction filed a motion to dismiss based on claims of lack of cause of action and failure to join an indispensable party, which was denied by the trial court. Subsequent motions by the petitioner to dismiss the complaint were also denied, leading to an appeal before the Court of Appeals.
Legal Issue
The primary issue in question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction or abused its discretion in rejecting the petitioner's motions to dismiss the complaint. The petitioner contended that the denial of their motion was an interlocutory order and thus improperly addressed by the Court of Appeals via certiorari.
Court's Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed that the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss was interlocutory and that the appropriate remedy would have been to appeal after a final decision was reached. It reiterated that an interlocutory order does not conclude the case and remains under the control of the court until a final judgment is made.
The Court also emphasized that the petitioner's second motion to dismiss, filed after they had already answered the complaint, was procedurally flawed. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss should be filed before an answer is submitted. The Court held that any alleged misjoinder or failure to include an indispensable party does not warrant dismissal, and parties can be added or dropped with the court's order at any stage of the proceedings.
Moreover, it was pointed out that the petitioner improperly sought to dictate litigation strategy to the respondent by
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 148174)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 12, 2001, and its Resolution dated May 8, 2001.
- It is titled "Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation vs. The Honorable Estela Perlas-Bernabe, RTC of Makati City, Branch 142, and Gary Cruz."
- The petitioner is Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation, while the respondents include Hon. Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Gary Cruz.
Parties Involved
Petitioner: Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation
- A domestic corporation responsible for the construction of the Fort Bonifacio-Kalayaan-Buendia Flyover Project II.
Respondents:
- Hon. Estela Perlas-Bernabe: Presiding Judge of the RTC of Makati, Branch 142.
- Gary Cruz: A doctor with a medical clinic affected by the ongoing construction.
Factual Background
- The construction of the flyover commenced on January 5, 1998.
- The construction works adversely affected nearby businesses, including Gary Cruz's medical clinic, leading to a significant decrease in patient visits due to safety concerns and lack of parking.
- On September 25, 1998, Cruz filed a complaint with the Office of the Barangay Chairman regarding these issues.
Procedural History
- The Barangay Chairman issued letters advising the petitioner to take action, which went unheeded.
- On November 17, 1998, Cruz demanded payment of P2,000.00 daily for lo