Title
Republic vs. Mendiola
Case
G.R. No. 175551
Decision Date
Jul 14, 2009
MIAA and LVV disputed lease terms at NAIA Terminal II; RTC ruled for LVV on rent reduction and electrical defects. SC upheld MIAA's timely appeal, remanding for unresolved issues.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175551)

Factual Background of the Case

On May 21, 2001, MIAA entered into a Contract of Lease and Concessions with LVV, granting LVV permission to operate specific outlets at NAIA Terminal II. The contract stipulated a six-month period for LVV to complete construction, which was extended multiple times due to deficiencies in the terminal's electrical setup. Subsequently, LVV filed a complaint on May 16, 2002, seeking specific performance from MIAA for unresolved electrical defects, resulting in a series of partial judgments and additional complaints against MIAA for failing to deliver contracted spaces and meet projected passenger forecasts.

Proceedings and Court Orders

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, in a series of orders, issued a partial summary judgment on August 19, 2003, directing MIAA to correct the electrical issues and grant construction extensions. A subsequent supplemental complaint was filed by LVV on September 4, 2003, seeking further relief including rental suspensions and damages due to MIAA's alleged breaches of contract. The RTC, on April 26, 2004, ruled that MIAA had breached its obligations and awarded LVV nominal damages while suspending rental payments pending further assessments.

MIAA's Notice of Appeal

After the RTC issued its Order on July 14, 2004, MIAA filed a notice of appeal on December 15, 2004. However, the RTC denied the notice, declaring it had been filed out of time. MIAA then sought relief through a petition for certiorari, arguing that its notice of appeal was made within the allowable period and asserting that the Orders being appealed were interlocutory and thus not final judgments.

Legal Analysis of the Orders

In determining the validity of the trial court's assessments, the Supreme Court emphasized that an order is final if it disposes of all issues concerning the parties; any remaining matters render the order interlocutory. The July 15, 2004 Order did not dispense with the outstanding issues related to damages and attorney’s fees, indicating it was not a final judgment. Consequently, the fi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.