FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252776. March 18, 2021.]
WACK WACK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs.AMA LAND, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 18, 2021 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 252776 (Wack Wack Residents Association, Inc. v. AMA Land, Inc.). — After a judicious study of the case, We resolve to remand the case to the court of origin for further proceedings.
At the outset, it must be pointed out by Wack Wack Residents Association, Inc. (WWRAI), the last day for filing the Motion for Reconsideration fell on August 21, 2019, a special non-working holiday. 1 Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court states:
Section 1. How to compute time. — In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.
Based on the foregoing, August 21, 2019, the supposed last day for filing of WWRAI's Motion for Reconsideration, should have not been included in the computation of the 15-day period. Instead, the first business day immediately following the special non-working holiday, August 22, 2019, should have been considered the last day to file the Motion for Reconsideration.
Essential in resolving whether WWRAI is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in its counterclaim is the determination of the nature of its counterclaim. The Court has laid down the following tests to determine the nature of a counterclaim, to wit: (1) are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?; (2) would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?; (3) will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as defendant's counterclaim?; and (4) is there any logical relation between the claim and counterclaim, such that the conduct of separate trials on the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court? 2
In this case, the allegations in support of WWRAI's counterclaim are as follows:
III. Counterclaims
The foregoing allegations are hereby repleaded by reference as they may be material and pertinent.
3.1. For being in violation of Art. V, Sec. 10 of MMDA Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, and of the clear terms of the HLURB Certificate of Locational Viability dated 05 January 1996 and the Locational Clearance No. 16283, for not having any valid excavation permit and building location permit, and for being a nuisance subject to judicial abatement, the ongoing construction of the AMA Tower must be declared illegal and the plaintiff, ordered to cease and desist from further construction.
3.2. Plaintiff should likewise be ordered to vacate Fordham Street as no easement of right of way could be imposed upon it for the benefit of an illegal construction project.
3.3. With utter contempt of law and the property and privacy of others, plaintiff surreptitiously entered and occupied a portion of Wack-Wack Village, specifically part of the subdivision road Fordham Street, destroying in the process the wall constructed across the said street. Thus, it should pay defendant the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as reimbursement for the wall destroyed. It should likewise pay defendant the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) per month as reasonable rent for the occupancy of Fordham St. from March 1996 to vacation.
3.4. To set an example for the public good, to discourage developers from trespassing and unilaterally appropriating the properties of others and subsequently using the courts of justice to give legal color to their illegal acts, plaintiff must likewise be held liable for exemplary damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
3.5. By reason of the unlawful, reckless, precipitate, wanton and malicious acts of plaintiff, as well as its filing of this patently baseless action, defendant was compelled to hire the services of the undersigned counsel for the agreed fee of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P250,000.00). Plaintiff must be held liable for this as well as for costs of suit.
3.6. For having issued the Certificate of Locational Viability dated 05 January 1996 to plaintiff despite the latter's violation of Sec. 10, Art. V of MMDA Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, the HLURB should be directed to immediately cancel, revoke and recall the said Certificate. The said Certificate should likewise be declared as null and void for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
3.7. For having issued the Locational Clearance No. 16283 to plaintiff despite the latter's violation of Sec. 10, Art. V of Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, the MMZA (sic) should be directed to immediately cancel, revoke and recall the said Clearance. The Clearance should likewise be declared as null and void for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
3.8. The Excavation and Ground Preparation Permit No. 0896-0071 dated 22 February 1996 issued to plaintiff in violation of Sec. 10, Art. V of MMDA Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01 should be immediately cancelled, revoked and nullified. Further, considering that the said permit was issued by an officer other than the City Engineer, the said Certificate should likewise be declared as null and void for having been issued without authority and/or in excess of jurisdiction. 3
A careful scrutiny of the allegations stated m WWRAI's counterclaim reveals that it is compulsory in nature. The counterclaim praying for the payment of reasonable rent, reimbursement of the wall that was destroyed, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees are so intertwined with the main injunction case that it is incapable of proceeding independently. The cause of action of WWRAI in its counterclaim arose from the injunction case AMA Land, Inc. (AMA) initiated. Had it not been for AMA's usage of a portion of Fordham Street, WWRAI would not have felt aggrieved and filed its counterclaim. The counterclaim will require a re-litigation of the same evidence if the counterclaim is allowed to proceed in a separate action.
WWRAI is correct in arguing that the principle of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable to its counterclaim as it is not the party who initiated the petition for injunction. To reiterate, the counterclaim of WWRAI is compulsory in nature. This principle cannot be invoked in dismissing a compulsory counterclaim which is not an initiatory pleading and where a party is compelled to allege all of its defenses under pain of waiver.
WWRAI also cannot be adjudged guilty of forum-shopping as the reliefs prayed for in its counterclaim are not entirely identical to the reliefs sought in the case it filed with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). The latter case is limited and restricted only to issues relating to the validity of the permits issued to AMA. The jurisdiction of the DPWH does not extend to the counterclaim of WWRAI for reasonable rent, reimbursement for the wall that was destroyed, damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. It must be stressed that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has no authority to resolve the issue on the alleged irregularities in the permits issued in favor of AMA. WWRAI only raised the purported irregularities in the issuance of the permits and certifications in favor of AMA to justify the reliefs it prayed for which are inherently related to the cause of action in the complaint. aScITE
Considering that the RTC erred in granting AMA's Motion to Dismiss WWRAI's counterclaim, the determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties should be resolved after the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City assigned in San Juan City (Metropolitan Manila), Branch 264 for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15, 164-166.
2.Alba, Jr. v. Malapajo, 778 Phil. 268 (2016).
3.Rollo, pp. 195-197.