Title
Supreme Court
St. Francis Square Realty Corp. vs. BSA Tower Condominium Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 238501
Decision Date
Aug 3, 2022
SFSRC’s exclusive condotel operation rights were upheld, but BSATCC was cleared of contempt as it was not party to the injunction case.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 32482)

Background of the Case

The petitioner, St. Francis Square Realty Corporation (SFSRC) developed BSA Tower and executed a Master Deed with Declaration of Restrictions granting it exclusive rights to operate the condominium units as a condotel. Over time, SFSRC allowed Quantum Hotels & Resorts Inc. to operate the condotel. In 2005, SFSRC expressed its intent to resume condotel operations, but Quantum continued operating.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by Petitioner

On April 25, 2007, SFSRC filed a complaint for injunction against Quantum, seeking to enforce its exclusive rights over the condotel operations. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in SFSRC's favor, affirming its exclusive rights in a July 2011 decision, which was later upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

Writ of Execution Issued

Following the RTC's decision, a Writ of Execution was issued on May 19, 2014, to enforce the court's ruling. However, subsequent actions revealed that Quantum no longer operated the condotel and that a new entity, Vander Build RE Holdings Corporation, had taken over operations.

Petition for Contempt

On June 4, 2014, SFSRC filed a petition to cite Quantum, Vander Build, Juaquin Mercado (a manager of the new operator), and BSA Tower Condominium Corporation (BSATCC) for contempt, asserting their conspiracy to violate the RTC’s decision and the writ of execution. BSATCC responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was not a party to the earlier injunction case and thus could not be bound by the court's decisions.

RTC Ruling on Motion to Dismiss

The RTC denied BSATCC's motion to dismiss the contempt petition in December 2014, allowing for a trial on the merits to determine the facts surrounding the alleged contempt. BSATCC subsequently sought relief from the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

On January 8, 2018, the Court of Appeals set aside the RTC's order and dismissed the contempt petition against BSATCC, concluding it was not a party in the original injunction case and therefore had no obligation to comply with the injunction court's orders. It emphasized that the RTC’s jurisdiction was limited to those properly named in the original action.

Further Developments in the Case

SFSRC's motion for reconsideration of the CA’s decision was rejected on March 26, 2018. Subsequently, SFSRC claimed that the CA erred in ruling against BSATCC's alleged contempt, asserting that even if BSATCC was not a party, its collusion with Quantum and Vander Build could still constitute contempt.

Legal Implications and Rulings

Respondent BSATCC argued that SFSRC engaged in forum shopping by pursuing similar claims in separate appeals. The court later confirmed that BSATCC was never a party to the injunction case and thus could not be held in contempt for v

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.