G.R. No. 221062 - ELIZABETH SY-VARGAS, VS. THE ESTATE OF ROLANDO OGSOS, SR. AND ROLANDO OGSOS, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondents filed a counterclaim for these lost profits plus damages. [25] On June 6, 2005, respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint in view of the absence of the required Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. In a Resolution dated November 9, 2005, the RTC dismissed the case without prejudice. [26] On December 15, 2005, respondents moved for the hearing of their counterclaim, to which the RTC required petitioner and Kathryn to submit a comment, but none was filed. Hence, in an Order dated February 9, 2006, the RTC set the case for reception of evidence on respondents' counterclaim. [27] On February 28, 2006, respondents filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Set Case for Pre-Trial, which was granted by the RTC on March 1, 2006, setting the pre-trial on March 30, 2006. Petitioner, Kathryn, and their counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial and to file their pre-trial brief. Thus, respondents filed a manifestation with motion to present evidence ex-parte on June 7, 2006, praying that petitioner and Kathryn be declared in default, and that respondents be allowed to present evidence on their counterclaim ex-parte , which the RTC granted in an Order dated June 28,2006. [28] Thereafter, or on August 16, 2006, petitioner and Kathryn moved to quash the June 28, 2006 Order, which was, however, denied on September 1, 2006 on the ground that the period to ask for reconsideration or for the lifting of the order had already lapsed. [29] On October 17, 2006, petitioner and Kathryn filed a motion to dismiss respondents' counterclaim arguing that the same were permissive and that respondents had not paid the appropriate docket fees. [30] However, the RTC, in its November 16, 2006 Order, [31] denied the said motion, declaring respondents' counterclaim as compulsory; thus, holding that the payment of the required docket fees was no longer necessary. [32] The RTC Ruling In a Decision [33] dated July 2, 2007, the RTC granted respondents' counterclaim, and consequently, ordered petitioner and Kathryn to pay respondents the following amounts: ( a ) P10,391,981.76 worth of sugar and molasses produced representing the value of 1,308.68 lkg. of sugar and 30.409 tons of molasses for each crop year that defendant and Ogsos, Sr. were deprived of possession and enjoyment of the leased premises; ( b ) P500,000.00 as moral damages; ( c ) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; ( d ) P100,000.00 as attorney's fees and P1,000.00 for each personal appearance of respondents' counsel before the RTC; and ( e ) P50,000.00 as costs of suit. [34] In so ruling, it found that Ogsos, Sr. faithfully paid the lease rentals during the crop years 1994 to 1997 [35] but eventually stopped their payments when petitioner and Kathryn took possession and harvested the sugarcane in the leased premises sometime in December 1998, despite respondents' objection. [36] Accordingly, petitioner and Kathryn reneged on their obligation to maintain respondents' peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the le