G.R. No. 139158 - CHANDRA O. CACHO, VS. JOAQUIN BONIFACIO AND TERESITA BONIFACIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows: 41.1. The COMPLAINT is DISMISSED in so far as it prayed that the DECISION dated February 25, 1992 rendered in Civil Case No. 8100, Metropolitan Trial Court, Parañaque, Metro Manila be ANNULLED. 41.2 The implementation of the WRIT OF EXECUTION dated March 10, 1992 issued in Civil Case No. 8100 against the plaintiff CHANDRA O. CACHO is declared VOID . 41.3 The defendants JOAQUIN S. BONIFACIO and TERESITA BONIFACIO are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, to the said plaintiff the following amounts: 41.3.1. P238,000.00 the amount of the unrealized profits from April 15, 1992 to August 11, 1992. 41.3.2. P60,301.00 - The value of the two (2) air-conditioners covered by Exh. P. 41.3.3. P50,000.00 - As moral damages. 41.3.4. P20,000.00 - As exemplary damages. 41.3.5. P25,000.00 - As attorney's fees. 42. The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendants the following: 42.1. P78,500.00 - As rentals of the leased premises at the rate of P17,000.00 a month from December 1991 to April 15, 1992. 43. The Counterclaim for moral damages and attorney's fees is DISMISSED . 44. Cost is taxed against the defendants. [4] Aggrieved, respondents challenged the RTC decision in the Court of Appeals. They alleged that the RTC erred in awarding damages to petitioner while dismissing the prayer for annulment of judgment and ruling that the MTC judgment was not secured by extrinsic fraud. In its assailed decision, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the RTC in Civil Case No. 92-1522 with respect to the dismissal of the complaint for annulment of the decision of the MTC in Civil Case No. 1800. However, on account of such dismissal, the appellate court reversed and deleted the award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs, as well as the grant of respondents' counterclaim for unpaid rentals. It held that the dismissal of the main action precluded an award of damages based on the alleged fraudulent acts constituting petitioner's cause of action. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the appellate court's decision but her motion was denied. Hence, this petition. The sole issue for the resolution of this Court is whether petitioner is entitled to damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the dismissal of the complaint for annulment of judgment precluded the award of damages and attorney's fees in her favor. She also maintains that the appellate court was wrong when it failed to rule that respondents were liable to her for damages and attorney's fees. The petition is impressed with merit. The deletion by the appellate court of the award of damages and attorney's fees was premised on the dismissal of the complaint for annulment of the judgment of the MTC. Apparently, for the appellate court, since the prayer for annulment of judgment was dismissed on the ground that the MTC decision was not attended by extrinsic fraud, then there w