G.R. No. 171365 - ERMELINDA C. MANALOTO, AURORA J. CIFRA, FLORDELIZA J. ARCILLA, LOURDES J. CATALAN, ETHELINDA J. HOLT, BIENVENIDO R. JONGCO, ARTEMIO R. JONGCO, JR. AND JOEL JONGCO, VS. ISMAEL VELOSO III.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after hearing the court render a decision against the [herein petitioners] and in favor of the [herein respondent] by - 1. Ordering [petitioners] to pay [respondent] the following amounts: a) P1,500,000.00 as moral damages and consequential damages; b) P500,000.00 as exemplary damages; c) P425,000.00 representing the difference of the expenses of the improvements of P825,000.00 and P400,000.00 pursuant to Art. 1678 of the Civil Code; d) P594,000.00 representing interest for three (3) years from 1998 to 2000 on the P825,000.00 advanced by the [respondent] at the rate of 24% per annum; e) P250,000.00 as compensation for the [respondent's] labor and efforts in overseeing and attending the needs of contractors the repair/renovation of the leased premises; f) P250,000.00, plus 20% of all recoveries from [petitioners] and P2,500.00 per hearing as attorney's fees; g) Cost of suit. [Respondent] further prays for such other reliefs and remedies which are just and equitable under the premises. [5] The petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion [6] on February 18, 2003 praying for, among other reliefs, the dismissal of respondent's complaint in Civil Case No. Q-02-48341. Petitioners argued that respondent had no cause of action against them because the MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case was a matter of public record and its disclosure to the public violated no law or any legal right of the respondent. Moreover, petitioners averred that the respondent's present Complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages was barred by prior judgment since it was a mere replication of respondent's Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim in the unlawful detainer case before the MeTC. The said unlawful detainer case was already judicially decided with finality. On September 2, 2003, the RTC-Branch 227 issued a Resolution dismissing respondent's complaint in Civil Case No. Q-02-48341 for violating the rule against splitting of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to disclose the pendency of a related case. The RTC-Branch 227 adjudged that Civil Case No. Q-02-48341 involved the same facts, parties, and causes of action as those in the unlawful detainer case, and the MeTC had already properly taken cognizance of the latter case. Respondent received a copy of the RTC-Branch 227 decision in Civil Case No. Q-02-48341 on September 26, 2003. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration [7] of said judgment on October 10, 2003, which RTC-Branch 227 denied in an Order [8] dated December 30, 2003. Respondent received a copy of the RTC-Branch 227 order denying his Motion for Reconsideration on February 20, 2004, and he filed his Notice of Appeal [9] on March 1, 2004. However, the RTC-Branch 227, in an Order [10] dated March 23, 2004, dismissed respondent's appeal for being filed out of time. Respondent received a copy of the RTC-Branch 27 order dismissing his appeal on April 30, 2004 and he filed a Motion for Reconsiderat