G.R. NO. 154765 - PEDRO T. BERCERO, VS. CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,[1]D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on October 22, 1990 a writ of execution was issued. [13] Sometime in November 1990, petitioner was evicted from the leased premises. [14] Petitioner assailed the Order dated October 4, 1990 in a petition for certiorari with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 23275, but the petition was denied due course and dismissed by the CA in a Decision dated December 28, 1990. [15] On September 3, 1991, respondent filed a Manifestation in Civil Case No. 52933 urging MeTC-Branch 41 to order R.C. Nicolas to desist from harassing respondent and petitioner, and to confirm respondent's right of possession to the premises in the light of the ejectment case filed by R.C. Nicolas against petitioner. [16] Two months later, or on November 13, 1991, MeTC-Branch 41 rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 52933 in favor of respondent and ordered R.C. Nicolas to pay its unpaid rentals from September 1986 until October 1988. [17] Meanwhile, since his eviction in November 1990, petitioner made repeated demands on respondent for the restoration of his possession of the commercial space leased to him to no avail. [18] Thus, on March 24, 1992, petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money with attachment and mandatory injunction with damages against the respondent before the RTC-Branch 88, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-92-11732. [19] On May 27, 1996, RTC-Branch 88 rendered its Decision [20] in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises rendered, this Court finds for the plaintiff and orders the defendant: 1) to restore plaintiff's possession of the rented building located at 1194 EDSA, Quezon City for the next three years effective from receipt of the copy of this decision; 2) to pay the plaintiff the following: a. P480,000.00 - actual damages b. P 50,000.00 - moral damages c. P 50,000.00 - exemplary damages d. P 50,000.00 - attorney's fees 3) to pay the costs. Accordingly, the counterclaim filed by the defendant Capitol Development Corporation is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.