SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 204641, June 29, 2015
CAMARINES SUR IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND ATTY. VERONICA T. BRIONES, Petitioners, v. EXPEDITA L. AQUINO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the July 10, 2012 Decision1 and the November 26, 2012 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 95416, which reversed the January 29, 2010 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Naga City, dismissing the complaint4 filed by herein respondent Expedita L. Aquino (Aquino) against the petitioners, Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CASURECO) and Atty. Veronica T. Briones (Atty. Briones), in Civil Case No. 2009-0040.
The Factual Antecedents
Petitioner CASURECO was an electric cooperative engaged in the distribution of electricity within the Partido area of Camarines Sur and Atty. Briones was its General Manager.5 Aquino, on the other hand, was a former employee of CASURECO who was then intending to put up a computer-gaming shop. She leased a commercial building situated in Poblacion, Tigaon, Camarines Sur. Considering that the electrical service of the eased premises was not connected, she paid the reconnection fee using the registered electrical account of the previous tenant, a certain Angelina Paglinawan.
On December 20, 2002, while renovation was ongoing at the leased premises for Aquino's computer-gaming shop, CASURECO discovered evidence of electricity pilferage in the said property. After the parties tried a conciliation, no settlement was reached. CASURECO gave Aquino options to avoid permanent disconnection of her electricity and criminal prosecution which the latter found to be tantamount to an admission of guilt. On January 23, 2003, the electricity in Aquino's leased property was permanently disconnected.
The First Case
On January 30, 2003, Aquino filed a complaint for damages against CASURECO before the RTC-Branch 62 (RTC-Br. 62), docketed as Civil Case No. 2003-023. She sought to recover damages from CASURECO in connection with the disconnection of electricity in her leased commercial space. CASURECO, in its Answer, set up an affirmative defense stating that the complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging that there was no contract between the parties to supply electricity. Aquino amended her complaint, but CASURECO maintained its prayer for the dismissal of the case. After treating it as a motion to dismiss, RTC-Br. 62, at first, denied the same in an order, dated July 10, 2003.6ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On December 22, 2003, upon CASURECO's motion for reconsideration, RTC-Br. 62 issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that the reconnection fee did not create a new contract between the parties as it was paid in the name of its previous lessee, whose contract ceased upon the disconnection of the electrical service.
On January 5, 2004, Aquino filed her motion for reconsideration with notice of hearing setting the hearing on the said motion on January 9, 2004. Aquino, however, mailed a copy of her motion to opponent's counsel on the same date. CASURECO opposed the motion arguing that it did not comply with the 3-day notice rule of the Rules of Court. The motion was eventually denied for lack of merit.
Aquino appealed to the CA. CASURECO argued that Aquino's motion for reconsideration was flawed and, thus, it did not bar the running of the reglementary period to file an appeal. The CA ruled in Aquino's favor stating that RTC-Br. 62 erred in dismissing her complaint because there was a cause of action.
Thereafter, CASURECO questioned that CA ruling before this Court. On September 23, 2008, the Court, in G.R. No. 167691, granted CASURECO's petition. The Court observed that Aquino's motion for reconsideration was defective as it did not comply with the 3-day rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Resultantly, the defective motion did not stop the running of her period to appeal. For this reason, her appeal to the C A should have been dismissed outright because the decision of RTC-Br. 62 in Civil Case No. 2003-023, had, by then, already become final and executory.7 The Court, however, opined that Aquino had a valid cause of action. Relevant portions are herein quoted:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Based on the allegations in the amended complaint, we hold that respondent stated a cause of action for damages. Respondent was in possession of the property supplied with electricity by petitioner when the electric service was disconnected. This resulted in the alleged injury complained of which can be threshed out in a trial on the merits. Whether one is a party or not in a contract is not determinative of the existence of a cause of action because even a third party outside the contract can have a cause of action against either or both contracting parties.8The Present Case
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appeals of Expedita L. Aquino, Atty. Veronica T. Briones and the Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc., are hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated January 29, 2010 and March 18, 2010 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27 of Naga City in Civil Case No. RTC 2009-0040 are hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for trial on the merits.Subsequently, CASURECO and Atty. Briones filed their Motion for partial reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA in its November 26, 2012 Resolution14 for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.13
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioners CASURECO and Atty. Briones argue that Civil Case No. 2003-023 was dismissed based on undisputed facts and not on mere technicalities. In the said case, it was held by the RTC that Aquino's complaint stated no cause of action. Therefore, Aquino had no right to pursue the claim against CASURECO, and the latter, in turn, had no obligation to Aquino. The petitioners insist that the judgment made by the trial court was one on the merits, notwithstanding the absence of a fullblown trial.16ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryISSUES
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE NO. 2003-023 OPERATES AS A BAR TO CIVIL CASE RTC 2009-0040 UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA; and
II. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED.15
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:The principle of res judicata lays down two main rules: (1) the judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties and their privies and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal, it is also commonly called as "bar by prior judgment" enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47 (b)23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and (2) any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claims or demands, purposes, or subject matters of the two suits are the same or known as "conclusiveness of judgment" in Rule 39, Section 47 (c).24ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryxxx
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Article 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the Court, when there is written extra-judicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.When respondent Aquino instituted an action for damages in 2003, the filing of the said case legally interrupted its prescription in accordance with Article 1155 of the Civil Code. As Article 1155 does not qualify, the interruption subsisted during the pendency of the action until its final resolution, which in this case, lasted until the entry of the final judgment in 2009. Thus, when she filed the second case in 2010, the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 2079, dated June 29, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 18-26. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, concurring.
2 Id. at 28.
3 Id. at 69-71.
4 Id. at 43-49.
5 Id. at 174.
6Lifted from Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Aquino, 587 Phil. 705, 708 (2008).
7 Id. at 37-39.
8Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Aquino, supra note 6, at 710.
9Rollo, pp. 43-49.
10 Id. at 50-64.
11 Id. at 51.
12 Id. at 29-40.
13 Id. at 25.
14 Id. at 28.
15 Id. at 177.
16 Id. at 8.
17 Id. at 10.
18 Id. at 180.
19 The following must be instituted within four years:(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff
(2) Upon a quasi-contract
20Rollo, p. 181.
21 Id. at 194.
22 Id. at 195.
23 RULE 39, SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - ...xxx
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; ...
24 RULE 39, SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - ...xxx
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
25Padillo v. Court of Appeals, ATI Phil. 334, 349 (2001), citing Islamic Directorate of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 338 Phil. 956, 980 (1997).
26Rizal Surety and Insurance Company v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 1126, 1138 (2000), citing Smith Bell and Company (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 274 Phil. 472, 481-482 (1991).
27Tan v. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 675, 681 (2001).
28Allied Banking Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 108089, January 10, 1994, 229 SCRA 252, 258.
29Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 409 Phil. 717, 731 (2001), citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 558, 566 (2000).
30Santos v. Heirs of Dominga Lustre, 583 Phil. 118, 127 (2008), citing Sendon v. Ruiz, 415 Phil. 376, 385 (2001).
31Perez v. Court of Appeals, 502 Phil. 346, 364 (2005).
32 507 Phil. 509 (2005).
33 Id. at 524.
34 Art. 1146 of the New Civil Code states: Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;cralawred
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;