SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 213650, June 17, 2019
BOOKLIGHT, INC., PETITIONER, v. RUDY O. TIU, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2 dated July 31, 2013, and the Resolution3 dated July 21, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cagayan De Oro City in CA-G.R. CV No. 02154-MIN.
On February 13, 2003, Rudy O. Tiu (respondent) filed a case for Collection of Sum of Money, Damages, Attorney's Fees, Litigation Expenses and Attachment against Booklight, Inc. (petitioner) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City.4
The complaint alleged that petitioner entered into a contract of lease with respondent for a space in respondent's building to be used for petitioner's bookstore business. The lease was for five years, which expired on September 1, 2001. It was never renewed upon expiration although petitioner continued to occupy the premises until its business operations ceased on February 28, 2003. Alleging unpaid rentals from December 2001, respondent filed the said complaint.5
Respondent's application for the issuance of a writ of attachment was granted by the RTC. Thus, petitioner's personal properties in the bookstore were attached and its funds in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation were garnished.6
In its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, petitioner alleged that there was no prior demand made by respondent and that it fully paid its rentals up to July 2002, among others.7
On September 2, 2003, the RTC declared petitioner non-suited for its failure to file a pre-trial brief and for its failure to appear during the scheduled pre-trial. Petitioner filed a motion to lift order of non-suit, which was denied by the RTC in its Resolution dated July 26, 2004. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the RTC. Hence, the RTC set the hearing for the ex parte presentation of respondent's evidence on March 21, 2005.8
Respondent then proceeded to the presentation of his evidence ex parte.9
Meanwhile, the RTC's denial of petitioner's motion to lift order of non-suit was upheld by the CA, as well as by this Court in a Resolution dated April 2, 2008 in G.R. No. 181950.10
On April 24, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision11 in favor of respondent as follows:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [the respondent) and against [the petitioner), directing and ordering said [petitioner] to pay [respondent] the following sums of money, to wit:On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision with modification, as follows:
a.) the sum of FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN PESOS and FIFTY CENTAVOS ([P]465,587.50), Philippine Currency, as unpaid rentals from August 2002 up to February 2003, plus legal interest of 6% per annum beginning August 2002 until fully paid;
b.) the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY SIX PESOS and EIGHTY SEVEN CENTAVOS ([P]116,396.87), Philippine Currency, as attorney's fees;
c.) the sum of FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINE PESOS and SIXTY FIVE CENTAVOS ([P]54,609.65), Philippine Currency, as litigation expenses;
d.) the sum of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWELVE PESOS and NINETY EIGHT CENTAVOS ([P]18,712.98), Philippine Currency, as unpaid electric bill;
e.) the sum of FORTY FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED PESOS ([P]45,900.00), Philippine Currency, for expenses incurred for security services; and
f.) to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated April 24, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Butuan City, in Civil Case No. 5310, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of legal interest on the amount of unpaid rentals, the expenses incurred for security services rendered by Visa Security Services, the litigation expense as well as attorney's fees are hereby DELETED.Petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration was denied by the CA in its July 21, 2014 Resolution, viz.:
SO ORDERED.13
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.Petitioner now questions the CA's Decision only with regard to matters raised on appeal but were not addressed therein.15 Petitioner avers that the CA neglected to rule on its claim for refund of the advanced rental and deposit it allegedly paid to respondent amounting to a total of One Hundred Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Pesos (P109,440.00).16
SO ORDERED.14
SEC. 15. Satisfaction of judgment out of property attached; return of officer. If judgment be recovered by the attaching party and execution issue thereon, the sheriff may cause the judgment to be satisfied out of the property attached, if it be sufficient for that purpose in the following manner: (Emphasis supplied)The use of the word may clearly makes the procedure directory, in which case, the sheriff may disregard the properties attached and proceed against other properties of the judgment debtor, if necessary.26
(a) By paying to the judgment obligee the proceeds of all sales of perishable or other property sold in pursuance of the order of the court, or so much as shall be necessary to satisfy the judgment;
(b) If any balance remain due, by selling so much of the property, real or personal, as may be necessary to satisfy the balance, if enough for that purpose remain in the sheriffs hands, or in those of the clerk of the court;
(c) By collecting from all persons having in their possession credits belonging to the judgment obligor, or owing debts to the latter at the time of the attachment of such credits or debts, the amount of such credits and debts as determined by the court in the action, and stated in the judgment, and paying the proceeds of such collection over to the judgment obligee.
The sheriff shall forthwith make return in writing to the court of his proceedings under this section and furnish the parties with copies thereof.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 9-22.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Renato C. Francisco, concurring; id. at 25-33.
3 Id. at 42-43.
4 Id. at 12.
5 Id. at 26.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 27.
8 Id. at 14, 27-28.
9 Id. at 28.
10 Id. at 15.
11 Id. at 221-227.
12 Id. at 226-227.
13 Id. at 32.
14 Id. at 43.
15 Id. at 16.
16 Id. at 16-18.
17 Id. at 19.
18 Id. at 18.
19 Id. at 19-20.
20 (1) where the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise, and conjectures; (2) where the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) where the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. (Citation omitted) Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172, 178-179 (2017).
21 Id. at 177-178.
22 Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof. RULES OF COURT, Rule 18.
23Daaco v. Yu, 761 Phil. 161, 168 (2015).
24Social Security System v. Hon. Chavez, 483 Phil. 292, 301 (2004).
25Maceda, Jr. v. Moreman Builders Company, Inc., 280 Phil. 319, 329 (1991) .
26 Id.
27 Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. -Execution shall issue as a matter of right, or motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution. RULES OF COURT, Rule 39.