SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211531. April 21, 2014.]
MABALACAT INSTITUTE, INC., petitioner, vs. SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 April 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 211531 (Mabalacat Institute, Inc., petitioner -versus- Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc., respondent)
This is an appeal via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 assailing the Decision dated 30 August 2013 and Resolution dated 26 February 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93376.
The facts are as follows:
On 29 October 2002, respondent Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. (SVHFI) filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against petitioner Mabalacat Institute, Inc. (MII) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150, of Makati City. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-1326.
In its complaint, SVHFI made the following allegations: that it is the registered owner 2 of a parcel of land situated in Mabalacat, Pampanga; that a portion of said land is occupied by MII; that the occupation by MII is only through its tolerance; that MII had never paid any rent in exchange for occupying the said land; that it made previous demands on MII to pay rent, but to no avail.
On 29 March 2006, MII filed its Answer with Counterclaim.
On 28 September 2007, however, MII filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum shopping. MII claimed that SVHFI, on 20 June 2006, filed before the Municipal Trial Court of Mabalacat an ejectment case against it based on the same factual milieu as Civil Case No. 02-1326, but did not report the same to the RTC as required in Section 5 (c) of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
On 31 March 2008, the RTC issued an order granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing Civil Case No. 02-1326. ADcHES
On 6 October 2008, the RTC denied SVHFI's motion for reconsideration.
Aggrieved, SVHFI appealed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 02-1326 to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 93376.
Meanwhile, on 25 October 2008, MII filed before the RTC an ex-parte motion for clarification relative to the 6 October 2008 order of the latter. In this motion, MII requested the RTC to set a date for the hearing of its counterclaim. MII claimed that it already made a similar request to the RTC in its motion to dismiss, but was apparently ignored by the court in its order granting the motion to dismiss.
On 27 November 2009, MII filed before the RTC a very urgent ex parte motion for resolution of its ex-parte motion for clarification.
On 7 December 2009, the RTC issued an order wherein it informed MII that it cannot as of yet act upon the very urgent ex parte motion since the records of Civil Case No. 02-1236 have been transmitted to the Court of Appeals for CA-G.R. CV No. 93376.
On 30 August 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision denying the appeal of SVHFI and affirming the dismissal of Civil Case No. 02-1326. Both MII and SVHFI filed motions for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals remained steadfast in its resolution dated 26 February 2014.
In both its decision and resolution, the Court of Appeals made no mention whatsoever about the request of MII to present evidence on its counterclaim before the RTC.
Hence this appeal by MII.
In this appeal, MII cries foul over the silence of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution regarding the fate of its counterclaim. MII claimed that it had already apprised the Court of Appeals about its counterclaim in its Reply Brief and motion for reconsideration.
OUR RULING
We deny the petition.
It must be mentioned at the outset that MII is not actually challenging the merits of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. MII is just concerned about the apparent disregard of its counterclaim in both.
The fate of the counterclaim of MII, however, is not for the Court of Appeals to decide; it is for the RTC. And the RTC was only unable to act upon MII's request because, according to the trial court, it already transmitted the records of Civil Case No. 02-1326 to the Court of Appeals due to the pendency of CA-G.R. CV No. 93376. This reasoning employed by the RTC was never challenged by MII; rather MII merely took the same as a cue to inform the Court of Appeals about its request to present evidence on its counterclaim before the RTC.
Hence, We find no error on the part of the Court of Appeals in making no disposition as to MII's counterclaim in its decision and resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 93376.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2. Per Transfer Certificate Title No. T-195826-R.