G.R. No. 145793 - LINA VILLANUEVA, VS. GENEROSO YAP AND THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY, BRANCH 37 PRESIDED BY HON. MONICO G. CABALES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that before the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, and (sic) injunction be issued, which can only be granted on notice and hearing, that the Honorable Court issues a temporary restraining order, commanding the defendant to desist from further committing acts of dispossession, and that after hearing, that a writ of injunction and writ of preliminary injunction be issued commanding the defendant to vacate her unlawful occupancy of the subject hut, and that judgment be rendered making said injunction permanent with costs against the defendant and for her to pay the attorneys fees of P10,000.00. Plaintiff further prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the premises. [2] The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3551 and was raffled to Branch 23 of the RTC. In her answer to the complaint, the petitioner alleged that Concepcion Malonjao designated her as caretaker of the property in 1974. She then built a hut on a portion of the property, where she and her family resided and planted a variety of plants. She further alleged that on June 2, 1978, Malonjao appointed her, in writing, as timekeeper and capataz in the property. Malonjao mortgaged the property to a certain Mr. Manansala in 1983, and her services as capataz were retained. The respondent informed her of his plan to buy the property and to terminate her employment in 1986. Malonjao finally terminated her services in February 1987, but failed to pay her separation pay. This impelled her to file a complaint against her employer in the NLRC, docketed as ROXI Case No. MC-032-65-87, for illegal dismissal and reinstatement with money claims. Thereafter, Malonjao, through her son Rufino Malonjao, offered to settle the case for P10,000.00. The petitioner was told that the amount was with the respondent, but before she could receive the same, the respondents counsel, in the company of armed men, ordered her to remove her hut from the property. The petitioner interposed counterclaims. For the respondents failure to appear for trial, his complaint was dismissed and the petitioner was allowed to adduce evidence, ex parte, on her counterclaims. On February 24, 1989, the court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint and ordering the respondent to pay damages to the petitioner on her counterclaims. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant ordering plaintiff to pay defendant as follows: a) P3,000.00 as moral damages; b) P3,000.00 as exemplary damages; c) P1,000.00 as temperate damages; and d) cost of the suit. SO ORDERED.