G.R. No. 117051 - FRANCEL REALTY CORPORATION, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND FRANCISCO T. SYCIP.

Ruling

accordingly falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate trade and industry, and to hear and decide cases of unsound real estate business practices. Although the case involving Antonio Sarte is still pending resolution before the HLURB Arbiter, and there is as yet no order from the HLURB authorizing suspension of payments on account of the failure of plaintiff developer to make good its warranties, there is no question to Our mind that the matter of collecting amortizations for the sale of the subdivision lot is necessarily tied up to the complaint against the plaintiff and it affects the rights and correlative duties of the buyer of a subdivision lot as regulated by NHA pursuant to P.D. 957 as amended. It must accordingly fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the said Board, and We find that the motion to dismiss was properly granted on the ground that the regular court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint. Accordingly, we hold that the MTC correctly held itself to be without jurisdiction over petitioners complaint. But it was error for the MTC to grant private respondents counterclaim for damages for expenses incurred and inconveniences allegedly suffered by him as a result of the filing of the ejectment case. [7] Pursuant to Rule 6, § 8 a party may file a counterclaim only if the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Otherwise the counterclaim cannot be filed. [8] Even assuming that the MTC had jurisdiction, however the award of damages to private respondent must be disallowed for the following reasons: (1) The MTC decision itself stated that the answer with its counterclaim was filed out of time or more than 10 days from private respondents receipt of summons. In effect, therefore, private respondent did not make any counterclaim. (2) Moreover, a reading of the MTC decision showed no justification for the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. As held in Buan v. Camaganacan, [9] an award of attorneys fees without justification is a "conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture." It should accordingly be stricken out. With respect to the award of moral and exemplary damages, the record is bereft of any proof that petitioner acted maliciously or in bad faith in filing the present action which would warrant such an award. [10] WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the complaint against private respondent is DISMISSED. The private respondents counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.