VOL. 296, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
487
Bachrach Corporation Corporation vs. Court of of Appeals * G. R.No . 1 2 83 4 9. Se p t e mb mb er2 5,1 9 98 .
s BACHRACH CORPORATI ON, pe t i t i o ne r ,v .THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALSandPHI LI PPI NEPORTSAUTHORI TY,r e s po nde nt s . Judgme nt s ;Re sJudi c at a;Thee s s e nt i alc o ndi t i o nswhi c hmus tc o nc uri no r de rt hatr e s j udi c at amaye ffe c t i v e l yappl y . —The r ea r ef o ur( 4 )e s s e n t i a lc o n di t i o nswhi c hmu mus tc o nc u ri n o r d e rt ha tr e sj udi c at a ma ma ye ffe c t i v e l ya ppl y , v i z . : “ ( 1 )t hej ud g me me n ts o u g htt oba rt hene w a c t i o nmus tb efina l ;( 2 )t hede c i s i o nmus tha v ebe e nr e nde r e dbyac o ur tha v i ngj ur i s d i c t i o n o v e rt hes ub j e c tma ma t t e ra ndt hepa r t i e s ;( 3 )t hedi s p o s i t i o no ft hec a s em mu us tb eaj udg me me nt o ro r de ro nt heme me r i t s ;a nd( 4 )t he r emu mus tb ebe t we e nt hefir s tands e c o ndac t i o ni de nt i t yo f par t i e s ,i de nt i t yo fs ubj e c tmat t e r ,andi de nt i t yo fc aus e so fac t i o n . ” Ac t i o ns ;Co nt r ac t s ;Wo r ds and Phr as e s ;Caus eo f Ac t i o n, De fine d;I n a br e ac h o f c o nt r a c t ,t hec o nt r a c tv i o l at e di st hes ubj e c tmat t e rwhi l et hebr e a c ht he r e o fbyt heo bl i g ori s t hec aus eo fac t i o n. —Ac a us eo fa c t i o n,b r o adl yde fine d,i sa na c to ro mi mi s s i o no fo nepa r t yi n v i o l at i o no ft hel e g alr i g hto ft heo t he r .Thes ubj e c tma mat t e r ,o nt heo t he rhand,i st hei t e m wi t hr e s p e c tt owh whi c ht hec o n t r o v e r s yha sar i s e n,o rc o nc e r ni ngwhi c ht hewr wr o ngha sbe e n do ne ,andi ti so r d i nar i l yt her i g ht ,t het hi ng ,o rt hec o nt r a c tunde rdi s put e .I nabr e a c ho f c o nt r a c t ,t hec o nt r a c tv i o l at e di st hes ubj e c tmat t e rwhi l et h ebr e a c ht he r e o fb yt heo bl i g or i st hec aus eo fac t i o n. Same ; Same ; Re sJudi c a t a;Theul t i mat et e s ti n as c e r t ai ni ngt hei de n t i t yofc a us e so f a c t i o ni ss a i dt ob et ol o o ki nt o whe t he ro rno tt hes a me mee v i de nc ef ul l ys up po r t sa nd e s t abl i s he sbo t ht hepr e s e ntc aus eo fac t i o nandt hef o r me rc aus eo fac t i o n . —Theul t i mat e t e s ti nas c e r t ai ni ngt hei de nt i t yo fc a us e so fac t i o ni ss ai dt obet ol o o ki nt owh whe t he ro rno t t hes a me mee v i de nc ef ul l ys u pp o r t sa nde s t a bl i s h e sbo t ht hepr e s e ntc a us eo fa c t i o na ndt he f o r me me rc a us eo fa c t i o n.I nt hea ffir ffir ma ma t i v e ,t hef o r me me rj ud gme ntwo ul db eab ar ;i fo t he r wi s e , t he nt ha tp r i o rj ud gme ntwo u l dno ts e r v ea ss uc hab art ot hes e c o nd .Thee v i d e nc ene e d e d t oe s t a bl i s ht hec a us eo fa c t i o ni nt heunl a wf uld e t a i ne rc a s ewo ul db et hel e a s ec o nt r a c t andt hevi o l at i o n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FI RSTDI VI SI ON.
*
488
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
88
Bachrach Corporation Corporation vs. Court Court of Appeals
of t hat l eas e by Bac hrac h. I n t he s pec i fic per f or mance c as e,what woul d be c o ns e q ue nt i a li se v i d e nc eo ft hea l l e g e dc o m mp pr o mi s ea gr e e me me nta ndi t sb r e a c hbyPPA. Same me ;Same me ;I nj unc t i ons A ;f t e ra j udgme nt has g ai ne d final i t y ,i t be c o me st he mi ni s t e r i aldut yo ft hec o ur tt oor de ri t se x e c ut i o n;Noc o ur ts ho ul di nt e r f e r ebyi nj unc t i o no r o t he r wi s et or e s t r a i ns u c he x e c u t i o n;Ex c e p t i o ns . —The r ul ei ndee di s ,and has al mos t i nv ar i a bl yb e en,t ha ta f t e raj udg me me ntha sga i ne dfina l i t y ,i tb ec o me me st hemi mi ni s t e r i a ldut yof t he c o ur tt oo r d e ri t se x e c ut i o n.No c o ur t ,pe r f o r c e ,s ho ul di nt e r f e r eb yi nj unc t i o no r o t he r wi s et or e s t r a i ns uc he x e c ut i o n.Ther ul e ,ho we v e r ,c o nc e d e dl ya dmi t so fe x c e p t i o ns ; hence,when f act s and c i r c ums t anc es l at er t r ans pi r et hat woul dr ender exe c ut i on i ne q ui t a bl eo runj us t ,t hei nt e r e s t e dpa r t yma ya s kac o mp mpe t e ntc o ur tt os t a yi t se x e c ut i o n o rpr e v e nti t se nf o r c e me me nt .So ,a l s o ,ac h ang ei nt hes i t ua t i o no ft hepa r t i e sc a nwa r r a nta n i nj unc t i v er e l i e f .
PETI TI ON f o rr e v i e wo nc e r t i o r a r io fade c i s i o no ft heCo ur to fAppe a l s .
Thef ac t sar es t at e di nt heo p i ni o no ft heCo ur t . Gut i e r r e z , Sundi a m & Vi l l a nue v a f o rpe t i t i o ne r . TheGo ve r nme ntCor por at eCouns e l f o rPhi l .Po r t sAut ho r i t y . VI TUG, J. : Bac hr ac h
Co r por at i o n
( “ Bac hr ac h” ) , i n
i t s
pe t i t i on
f o r
r e vi e w
o nc e r t i o r ar i ,ques t i ons t he dec i s i on oft he CourtofAppeal si nCAG. R.SP No. 3 87 63 ,pr o mul g at e do n1 2No v e mb e r1 9 96 ,t hed i s p o s i t i v ep ar to fwhi c hr e a di ng — “ WHEREFORE, t he pe t i t i o n i s gr ant e d. The as s ai l e d RTC o r de r s ar e her e by NULLI FI ED and SET ASI DE and publ i cr e s ponde nti sor der ed t o di s mi s st he s ubj e c t a c t i o nb e f o r ehi m unde rCi v i lCa s eNo .9 57 33 99 .Nop r o no unc e me nta st oc o s t s . ” — 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ro l l o ,p.59.
1
489
VOL. 296, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
489
Bachrach Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
o ns e v e r alc o unt s ;v i z . : 1 .“ I . THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED I N NOT DI SMI SSI NG CAG. R. SP NO.38673DESPI TE THE FACT THAT A SI MI LAR PETI TI ON EARLI ER FI LED BY PPA WAS DI SMI SSED FOR BEI NG I NSUFFI CI ENT NOTONLY I N FORM BUT ALSO I N SUBSTANCE WHI CH DI SMI SSAL CONSTI TUTE R S ES JUDI CATAI NSOFARASTHEI SSUESRAI SEDTHEREI N ARE CONCERNED. 2.“ I I . THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED I N RULI NG THAT THE DECI SI ON I N THE UNLAWFUL DETAI NER CASE CONSTI TUTE R S ES JUDI CATAWHI CH BARSTHESPECI FI CPERFORMANCECASE. 3.“ I I I . THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED I N RULI NG THAT THE FI LI NG OF THE SPECI FI C PERFORMANCE CASE VI OLATES THE RULE AGAI NSTFORUM SHOPPI NG. 4.“ I V. THE COURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELY ERRED I N RULI NG THATTHE WRI T OF PRELI MI NARY I NJUNCTI ON
I SSUED
BY THE
TRI AL COURT
CONSTI TUTES I NTERFERENCE WI TH I TSJUDGMENT I N THE UNLAWFUL DETAI NERCASE. 5.“ V. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED I N ORDERI NG THE DI SMI SSAL OFCI VI L CASE NO. 9573399THEREBY RULI NG ON THE MERI TS OF THE CASE WHEN I N FACT,THE ONLY I SSUES FOR I TS RESOLUTI ON WERE THE PROPRI ETY OF THE WRI T OF PRELI MI NARY I NJUNCTI ON I SSUED BY THE TRI AL COURT AND THE DENI AL OF PPA’ S MOTI ON FORPRELI MI NARYHEARI NG ON AFFI RMATI VEDEFENSES. ” 2
I two ul dappe art hatpe t i t i o ne rc o r po r a t i o ne nt e r e di nt ot wol e as ec o nt r a c t swi t h t hePhi l i p pi nego v e r nme ntc o v e r i ngt wos p e c i fie da r e a s ,Bl o c k1 80a ndBl o c k1 85 , l o c a t e da tt heMa ni l aPo r tAr e a ,t he nund e rt hec o nt r o la ndma na g e me n to ft he
Di r e c t o ro fLands , f o rat e r mo fni ne t y ni ney ear se a c h,t hefir s tl e as et oe xpi r eo n19 June2017andt heo t heron14 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ro l l o ,p.14.
2
490
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bachrach Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
Fe b r ua r y2 0 18 .Dur i ng he rt e n ur e ,Pr e s i d e ntCo r a z o n Aq ui no i s s ue d Ex e c ut i v e Or d e rNo .3 21t r a ns f e r r i ngt hema na g e me nta nda dmi ni s t r a t i o no ft hee nt i r ePo r t Ar e at ohe r e i nr e s po nde ntPhi l i ppi nePo r t sAut ho r i t y( “ PPA” ) .Sho r t l yaf t e ri t st ake o v e r ,PPAi s s ue daMe mo r a nd um i nc r e a s i ngt her e nt a lr a t e so fBa c h r a c hb y1 , 5 00 %. Ba c h r a c hr e f us e dt op a yt hes u bs t a nt i a li nc r e a s e dr a t e sd e ma nd e db yPPA. On2 3Ma r c h1 99 2,PPA i ni t i a t e dunl a wf uld e t a i ne rp r o c e e d i ng s ,d o c k e t e dCi v i l Cas e No.138838o ft he Me t r opol i t an Tr i alCourt( “ MeTC” )ofMani l a,agai nst Bac hrac hf ornonpaymentofr ent .On 27 Apr i l1993,MeTC r ender eda dec i s i on o r de r i ngt hee v i c t i o no fBa c h r a c hf r o mt hel e a s e dpr e mi s e s .Ba c h r a c ha ppe a l e dt o t heRe g i o n alTr i a lCo u r t( “ RTC” )o fMa ni l awhi c h,o n2 1Se p t e mb e r1 9 93 ,a ffir me d t hede c i s i o no ft hel o we rc o ur ti nt o t o . 3
Ba c hr a c he l e v a t e dt hec a s et ot heCo u r to fAp pe a l sb y wa yo fa p e t i t i o nf o r r e v i e w.On 2 9J ul y1 9 94 ,t hea pp e l l a t ec o u r ta ffir me dt hed e c i s i o no ft heRTC.A mo t i o nf o rr e c o ns i de r a t i o n wa sfil e db y Ba c hr a c h;ho we v e r ,t her e s o l ut i o no ft he mo t i onwasputonhol dpendi ngsubmi s s i onofac ompr omi s eagre ement . Whe nt he 4
pa r t i e sf a i l e dt os u bmi tt hepr o mi s e dc o mpr o mi s ea g r e e me nt ,t heCo ur to fApp e al s , o n1 5Ma y1 99 5,de ni e dBa c hr a c h’ smo t i o nf o rr e c o ns i de r a t i o n.Thede c i s i o no ft he a pp e l l a t ec o ur ti nt hee j e c t me n ts ui tb e c a mefina la nde x e c ut o r yo n2 0Ma y19 95 . 5
Meanwhi l e on 28 Mar c h 1995,whi l et he mo t i on f orr ec onsi der at i on wasye t p e nd i ngwi t ht heap pe l l a t ec o u r t ,Ba c h r a c hfil e dac o mp l a i nta g ai ns tPPA wi t ht he Ma ni l aRTC,d o c k e t e dCi v i lCa s eNo .9 57 33 99( he r e i na f t e rr e f e r r e dt oa l s oast he s p e c i ficp e r f o r ma nc ec a s e ) ,f o rr e f us i ngt oho no rac o mpr o mi s ea gr e e me nts a i dt o havebee n per f ec t edbe t wee n Bac hr ac h and PPA dur i ng t hei r04 Febr uary1994 c o n f e r e nc et ha ts upe r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ro l l o ,p.47 .
3
4
Co ur to fAp pe a l sDe c i s i o n,Ro l l o ,pp.4748.
I bi d. 5
491
VOL. 296, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
491
Bachrach Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
s eded t he ej ec t ment c ase .I n i t sc ompl ai nt , Bac hr ac h pr aye d f or s pec i fic p e r f o r ma nc e . On0 8J une19 9 5,PP A fil e damo t i o nf o rawr i to fe x e c ut i o n / g a r n i s hme n ti nt he e j e c t me ntc a s e .Thene x td a y ,0 9J une19 95 ,Ba c h r a c hfil e da na pp l i c a t i o ni nt he s p e c i ficp e r f o r ma nc ec a s ef o rt hei s s uanc eo fat e mpo r ar yr e s t r ai ni ngor de ra nd/ o ra wr i t ofpr el i mi nar yi nj unct i on t o enj oi nt he MeTC f r om i s s ui ng t he wr i t of e x e c ut i o n/ g ar ni s h me nt .PPAc o unt e r e db yfil i ngamo t i o nf o rp r e l i mi na r yhe a r i ngo n
i t sa ffir ma t i v ede f e ns e sa l o ngt hes a meg r o u nd sme nt i o ne di ni t smo t i o nt odi s mi s s t hes pe c i ficp e r f o r ma nc ec a s e ,t owi t :( a )t hepe nde nc yo fano t he ra c t i o nb e t we e nt he s a mepa r t i e sf o rt hes a mec a us e ;( b )t hev i o l a t i o no ft hea nt i f o r ums ho ppi ngr ul e ; ( c )t hec o mpl ai nt ’ sl ac ko fc a us eo fac t i o n;and( d)t heune nf o r c e abl ec har a c t e ro ft he c o mpr o mi s ea gr e e me nti n v o ke dbyBa c hr a c h.On1 3J ul y19 95 ,t het r i a lc o ur ti s s ue d a no mni b uso r d e r ,g r a nt i ngt hea ppl i c a t i o no fBa c hr a c hf o rawr i to fpr e l i mi na r y i nj unc t i o n,i nt hi st e no r — “ PREMI SESCONSI DERED,t hi sCourti soft heopi ni onands ohol ds( 1)t hatpl ai nt i ff ( Ba c hr a c h )i se nt i t l e dt ot hei nj unc t i v er e l i e fpr a y e df o randupo nt hepo s t i ngo fab o ndi n t hea mo unto fP3 00 , 0 00 . 0 0,l e tawr i to fpr e l i mi na r yi nj unc t i o nb ei s s ue de nj o i ni ngt he d e f e nd ant( PPA) ,t hePr e s i d i ngJudg eo ft heMe t r o po l i t a nTr i a lCo ur to fMa ni l a ,Br a nc h2 f r om i ss ui ng a wr i t ofexec ut i on/ garni shment i nCi vi l Case No.238838CVent i t l ed P ‘hi l i ppi nePo r t sAut ho r i t yv s .Bac hr ac h Co r po r at i o n ’ ;( 2)l i f t i ng/ s e t t i ng as i de t heo r de r dat ed June 5,1995 and ( 3)denyi ng def endant ’ s mot i on f ora pre l i mi nary hear i ng on a ffir ma t i v ede f e ns e s . ” 6
PPA mo v e df o rr e c o ns i de r a t i o no ft hea bo v eo r d e rb utt het r i a lc o ur td e ni e dt he pl e ai ni t so r de ro f2 9Aug us t1 99 5. On 25Sept ember1995,PPA fil edapet i t i onf orc e r t i o r ar i andpr o hi bi t i o n,wi t h a pp l i c a t i o nf o rt he i s s ua nc eo fa t e mp o r a r yr e s t r a i ni ng o r d e ra nd / o r wr i to f p r e l i mi na r yi nj unc t i o n ,d o c k e t e dCAG. R. SP No . 38 5 0 8 ,b e f o r et he Co u r to f Appe al s .Thepe t i t i o nwasdi s mi s s e db yr e s o l ut i o n,dat e d28Se pt e mbe r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ro l l o ,p.145.
6
492
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bachrach Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
1 99 5,o ft hea ppe l l a t ec o ur tf o rb e i ngi ns uffic i e nti nf o r ma nd s u bs t a nc e ,i . e . ,t he f ai l ur eo fPPAt opr o p er l yat t ac hac e r t i fie dt r uec o p ye ac ho ft heas s a i l e do r d ero f13 J ul y19 95a nd2 9Aug us t1 99 5o ft het r i a lc o ur t .PPAr e c e i v e do n0 5Oc t o b e r1 9 9 5 a 7
c o p yo ft her e s o l ut i o n,da t e d28Se p t e mb e r1 99 5,o ft hea ppe l l a t ec o ur t .Unda unt e d, PPA fil ed a new pet i t i on on 11 Oc t obe r 1995,now e vi dent l yi n pr ope rf or m, as s e v e r at i ngt ha ts i nc ei thadr e c e i v e dac o p yo ft heas s a i l e dr e s o l ut i o no ft het r i al c o ur to n l yo n0 7 Se p t e mb e r19 95 ,t her e fil i ng o ft hep e t i t i o n wi t ht heCo ur to f Appe al swi t hi nape r i o do fl e s st hant womo nt hsf r o mt hedat eo fs uc hr e c e i ptwas we l lwi t hi nt her e a s o na bl et i mer e q ui r e me ntunde rt heRul e sf o ra s p e c i a lc i v i l ac t i o nf o r c e r t i o r ar i . I nt heme a nt i me ,t her e s o l ut i o n,d at e d2 8Se p t e mb e r1 99 5,o f 8
t heCo u r to fAp pe a l swhi c hd i s mi s s e d CAG. R.No . 3 8 50 8b e c a mefi na lo n21Oc t o b e r 1995. 9
I ni t sne wl y fil e dp e t i t i o n ,d o c k e t e dCAG. R.SP No .3 8 67 3 ,PP Ai n v o k e dt he f o l l o wi nggr o undsf o ri t sa l l o wanc e : 1 .“ I . Tha tr e s p o nde ntJ udg ea c t e dwi t ho ut ,o ri ne x c e s so fj ur i s d i c t i o n,o rwi t hg r a v e a bus eo fdi s c r e t i o nwhe ni ti s s u e dawr i to fpr e l i mi na r yi nj unc t i o na ga i ns tt hefina l a nde x e c ut o r yr e s o l ut i o no ft heHo no r a bl eCo ur to fApp e al s( Anne x‘ I ’ )i ns p i t eo f t hewe l l e s t abl i s he dr ul et hat c o ur t sar eno ta l l o we dt oi nt e r f e r e wi t he a c ho t he r ’ s j udgme nto rde c r e e sbyi nj unc t i o n, a ndwo r s e ,i nt hi sc a s e , ag ai ns tt hee x e c ut i o no f
t hej udg me n to fas u pe r i o ro rc o l l e g i a t ec o ur twhi c hha da l r e a dybe c o mefi na la nd e x e c ut o r y . 2 .“ I I . Tha tr e s p o nde ntJ udg ea c t e dwi t ho ut ,o ri ne x c e s so fj ur i s d i c t i o n,o rwi t hg r a v e a bus eo fd i s c r e t i o n whe ni tal s od e ni e d pe t i t i o ne r ’ s mo t i o nf o r a pr e l i mi na r y he a r i ngo ni t saffir ma t i v ed e f e ns e so ri nf a i l i ngt oha v et hec a s eb e l o wo ut r i g ht l y d i s mi s s e do nt heg r o u nd ss t a t e di ni t sa ffir ma t i v ed e f e ns e s , whe nr e s p o n de ntJ ud g e p r o n o unc e dt he r ei snoi de nt i t yast ot hec aus e so fa c t i o n b e t we e nt hec a s ede c i d e d b yt heCo ur to fAp pe a l s( CAG. R.SPNo .3 26 30 )a ndt hec a s eb e l o w( Ci v i lCa s eNo . 9 57 33 99 )whe nc l e a r l y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pe re n t r yo fj ud gme nti s s u e db yt h eCo ur to fAp pe a l s , Ro l l o ,pp.2 86 2 87 .
7
Ro l l o ,p.288.
8
Ro l l o ,p.264.
9
493
VOL. 296, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
493
Bachrach Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
nt hes a mei s s ueo fp o s s e s s i o no ft he 1 .t hec a us e so fa c t i o ni nb o t hc a s e sr e v o l v eo s ubj e c tl e as e dpr e mi s e s . 2. “ I I I . Thatr e s p onde ntJudg eac t e dwi t ho ut ,o ri ne x c e s so fj ur i s di c t i o n,o rwi t hgr a v e a bus eo fd i s c r e t i o ni nr e f us i ngt ot a kec o g ni z a nc e( o f ) ,a bi de( b y)a nda c kno wl e dg e t hefina lj ud gme nto ft heCo ur to fAp pe a l swhi c h,o ns a i dg r o u nda l o ne ,i se n o ug h j us t i fic at i o nf o rt he di s mi s s alo ft he c as e gr o unde do nr e sj udi c at a.Mor eo ve r pr i v at er e s po nde nti sg ui l t yo f fo r ums ho ppi nga nd t he p e na l t yt he r e f o ri st he di s mi s s alo fi t sc as e . ” 1 0
On 12 Nov ember1996,t he Courto fAppeal sr ender ed t he as s ai l ed dec i s i on nul l i f y i ngands e t t i ngas i det heo r d e r so ft heRTCando r d er i ngt hel at t e rt odi s mi s s t hes p e c i ficp e r f o r ma nc ec a s e . TheCo ur tfindsme r i ti nt hei ns t a nta ppe a li nt e r p o s e db ype t i t i o ne r . Ve r i l y ,t hede c i s i v ei s s uer ai s e db yt hepar t i e sbe f o r et heCo ur ti nt hei ns t ant p e t i t i o ni swhe t he ro rno tt he s p e c i ficpe r f o r ma nc ec a s e( Ci v i lCa s eNo .7 33 99 ) s h o ul db ehe l db ar r e db yt heunl a wf uld e t a i ne rc a s eo nt hegr o undo fr e sj udi c at a. The r ea r ef o u r( 4 )e s s e n t i a lc o n di t i o n s whi c h mus tc o n c ur i no r d e rt ha tr e s j udi c at a ma ye ffe c t i v e l ya ppl y ,v i z . : “ ( 1 )t hej ud gme nts o ug htt oba rt hene wa c t i o n mustbe final ;( 2)t he dec i s i on musthave bee nr ender ed by a c our thavi ng j ur i s di c t i o no v e rt hes ubj e c tmat t e randt hepar t i e s ;( 3)t hedi s po s i t i o no ft hec as e mus tb eaj ud g me n to ro r d e ro nt heme r i t s ;a nd( 4 )t he r emus tb ebe t we e nt hefir s t and s e c o nd ac t i o ni de nt i t yo fpar t i e s ,i de nt i t yo fs ubj e c tmat t e r ,and i de nt i t yo f c a us e so fac t i o n. ”The r ei s no q ue s t i o na bo utt he f a c tt ha ta l lt he fir s tt hr e e 11
e sj udi c at aa e l e me nt so fr r e he r ee x t a nt ;i ti st he fina lc o n di t i o nr e q ui r i ng a n i de nt i t yofpar t i e s ,o fs ubj e c tmat t e rando fc aus e sofac t i o n,par t i c ul ar l yt hel as t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ro l l o ,pp.5 152.
1 0
1 1 Me ndi o l av s .Co ur to fAppe al s,258SCRA 492 B ;l ueBarCo c o nutPhi l s . ,I nc .v s .Nat i o nalLabo r
Re l at i o nsCo mmi s s i o n,20 8 SCRA 37 D 1; e v e l o pme ntBank o ft hePhi l i ppi ne sv s .Pundo g ar,21 8 SCRA 118; Gue v a r av s .Be n i t o,247SCRA570 . 494
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bachrach Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
t wo ,i . e . , s ub j e c tma t t e ra ndc a us eo fa c t i o n,t ha tp r e s e n t sapr o b l e m. A c aus eo fac t i o n,br o adl yde fine d,i sanac to ro mi s s i o no fo nepar t yi nv i o l at i o n o ft hel e galr i g hto ft heo t he r . Thes u bj e c tma t t e r ,o nt heo t he rha nd,i st hei t e m 12
wi t hr e s p e c tt owhi c ht hec o n t r o v e r s yha sar i s e n ,o rc o nc e r n i ngwhi c ht hewr o ngha s be e ndo ne ,andi ti so r d i nar i l yt her i g ht ,t het hi ng,o rt hec o nt r a c tunde rdi s put e .I n 13
abr e a c ho fc o nt r a c t ,t hec o n t r a c tv i o l a t e di st h es ub j e c tma t t e rwhi l et heb r e a c h t he r e o fb yt heo bl i g o ri st hec a us eo fa c t i o n.I two ul da ppe arq ui t epl a i nt he nt ha t t heRTC di da c tap t l yi nt aki ngc o g ni z a nc eo ft hes p e c i ficp e r f o r ma nc ec a s e .I nCi v i l a wf ulde t ai ne r Cas eNo.138838oft heMeTC,t heunl c a s e ,t hes ub j e c tma t t e ri st he c o nt r a c to fl e a s eb e t we e nt he p ar t i e s whi l et he b r e a c ht he r e o f ,a r i s i ng f r o m pe t i t i o ne r ’ sno npa yme nto fr e nt al s ,c o ns t i t ut e st hes ui t ’ sc aus eo fa c t i o n.I nCi v i l Ca s eNo .7 33 99o ft heRTC,t hes p e c i ficp e r f o r ma nc ec a s e ,t hes u bj e c tma t t e ri st he c o mp r o mi s ea g r e e me n tal l e g e d l yp e r f e c t e db e t we e nt he s a me p ar t i e swhi l et he c a us eo fa c t i o ne ma na t e sf r o mt hea v e r r e dr e f us a lo fPPA t oc o mp l yt he r e wi t h.The ul t i mat et e s ti nas c e r t ai ni ngt hei de nt i t yo fc a us e so fa c t i o ni ss ai dt obet ol o o ki nt o whe t he ro rn o tt hes a mee v i de nc ef ul l ys u ppo r t sa nde s t a bl i s h e sbo t ht hepr e s e n t c a us eo fa c t i o na nd t he f o r me rc a u se o fa c t i o n .I nt he a ffir ma t i v e ,t he f o r me r j udg me ntwo ul dbeabar ;i fo t he r wi s e ,t he nt hatpr i o rj udg me ntwo ul dno ts e r v eas s u c haba rt ot hes e c o nd. Thee v i de nc ene e de dt oe s t ab l i s ht hec a us eo fa c t i o ni nt he 14
unl a wf ulde t ai ne rc as ewo ul dbet hel e as ec o nt r a c tandt hev i o l at i o no ft hatl e as eb y Ba c h r a c h .I nt hes p e c i ficp e r f o r ma nc ec a s e , wha two ul db ec o ns e q ue nt i a li se v i de nc e o ft hea l l e g e dc o mp r o mi s ea gr e e me nta ndi t sb r e a c hb yPPA. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 D e v e l o pme ntBank o ft hePhi l i ppi ne sv s .Pundo g ar,21 8 SCRA 11 R 8;ac o ma v s .Fo r t i c h,39SCRA
5 20 ;Sant o sv s .I AC,145SCRA23 R 8 ;e publ i cPl ant e r sBankv s .I AC,131SCRA631. 1 3
Yu s i ng c ov s .On gHi ngLi a n,42SCRA590 .
1 4 Me ndi o l av s .Co ur to fAppe al s,258SCRA 492 D ;e v e l o pme ntBanko ft hePhi l s .v s .Pundo g ar,218
SCRA118. 495
VOL. 296, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
495
Bachrach Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
Thene x tt hi ngt oa s k ,o fc o ur s e ,wo ul db et heq ue s t i o no fwhe t he ro rno tt he i s s ua nc eb yt het r i a lc o ur to ft hewr i to fpr e l i mi na r yi nj unc t i o nwa sa ni mp r o p e r i nt e r f e r e nc ewi t ht hej ud gme nti nt heunl a wf ulde t a i ne rs ui t .I tc o ul db ea r g ue d t hat ,i ns t e ado ffil i ngas e p ar at ea c t i o nf o rs p e c i ficpe r f o r ma nc e ,Ba c hr ac hs ho ul d j us tha v epr e s e nt e dt heal l e g e dc o mpr o mi s eagr e e me nti nt heunl a wf ulde t ai ne r c a s e .Unf o r t una t e l y ,t her e f us a lo fPPA t oho no rt hea gr e e me nta f t e ri t sa l l e g e d pe r f e c t i o ne ffe c t i v e l ypr e v e nt e d Ba c hr a c hf r o ms e e k i ngt hec o e r c i v ep o we ro ft he c o ur tt oe nf o r c et he c o mp r o mi s ei nt he unl a wf uld e t a i ne rc a s e .The s i t ua t i o n v i r t ual l yl e f tBa c hr ac hwi t hb utt her e me dyo fi nde pe nde nt l yi ni t i a t i ngt hes p e c i fic
pe r f o r manc ec a s ei nac o ur to fc o mpe t e ntj ur i s di c t i o n.I ni t sc hal l e ng edde c i s i o n,t he Co ur to fAppe a l s , o ni t spa r t ,ha ss ai dt ha tr e s p o nde ntPPA’ spr a y e rf o rt hei s s u anc e o fawr i to fe x e c ut i o na ndga r ni s hme nti sb utt hene c e s s a r yandl e g alc o n s e que nc eo f i t sa ffir ma nc eo ft hel o we rc o ur t ’ sde c i s i o ni nt heunl a wf ulde t a i ne rc a s ewhi c hha s b yt he nb e c o mefina la nde x e c ut o r y . Ther u l ei nde e di s ,a ndha sa l mo s ti nv a r i a bl y 15
b e e n,t ha ta f t e raj udg me ntha sg ai ne dfina l i t y ,i tb e c o me st hemi ni s t e r i a ldut yo f t hec o ur tt oor d eri t se x ec ut i o n.Noc o ur t ,pe r f o r c e ,s ho ul di nt e r f e r ebyi nj unc t i o no r 16
o t he r wi s et or e s t r a i ns u c he x e c ut i o n.The r u l e ,h o we v e r ,c o nc e d e dl ya dmi t so f e x c e p t i o ns ;he nc e ,whe nf ac t sa ndc i r c ums t anc e sl a t e rt r a ns p i r et ha two ul dr e n de r e x e c u t i o ni ne q ui t a bl eo runj us t ,t hei nt e r e s t e dpar t yma ya s kac o mpe t e ntc o u r tt o s t a yi t se x e c ut i o no rpr e v e nti t se nf o r c e me nt . So ,al s o ,ac h ang ei nt hes i t ua t i o no f 17
t hepar t i e sc a n war r antani nj unc t i v er e l i e f . Ev i de nt l y ,i ni s s ui ngi t so r de r sof13 18
J ul y199 5and2 9Aug us t1 99 5a s s a i l e db yPPAi nt hel a t t e r ’ sp e t i t i o nf o r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ro l l o ,pp.5 354.
1 5
N q uev s .Zapat o s,219SCRA 639 Or t e g a sv s .Hi da l g o,198SCRA Se c t i o n1 ,Rul e39 ,Rul e so fCo ur t ; i ;
1 6
6 35 E ;s q ui v e lv s .Al e gr e,172SCRA31 R 5 ;o dr i g ue zv s .Pr o j e c t6Mar ke tSe r v i c eCo o pe r at i v e ,I nc .,247SCRA 528. 1 7 L e ev s .DeGuz man,Jr . ,187SCRA276 . 1 8 L unav s .Co ur to fAppe al s,137SCRA7 He ; i r so fGumi npi nv s .Co ur to fAppe al s,120SCRA687 .
496
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bachrach Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
c e r t i o r ar i a ndpr o hi bi t i o nbe f o r et heCo ur to fAppe al s ,t het r i alc o ur ti nt hec a s eat bar woul d want t o pr e s er v s et at us q uope nd i ng i t s di s p o s i t i o no ft he s p e c i fic per f o r manc ec as e and t o pr e ve nt t he c as ef r o m be i ng mo o t e d by an ea r l y i mp l e me nt a t i o no ft hee j e c t me ntwr i t .I n ho l di ngdi ffe r e nt l ya nda s c r i b i ngt ot he t r i alc o ur tgr a v eabus eo fd i s c r e t i o namo unt i ngt ol ac ko re x c e s sofj ur i s di c t i o n,t he appe l l at ec o ur t ,i no urc o ns i de r e dv i e w,hasc o mmi t t e dr e v e r s i bl ee r r o r . Ha v i ng r e a c he dt he a b o v ec o n c l us i o n s ,o t he ri nc i d e nt a li s s ue sr a i s e db y pe t i t i o ne rnol o ng e rne e dt ob epa s s e dupo n. WHEREFORE,t hepe t i t i oni sGRANTED.Thede c i s i onoft heCour tofAppeal si s r e v e r s e da nds e ta s i de ;Ci v i lCa s eNo .7 33 99a l o ngwi t ht hea s s a i l e do r d e r so ft he Re gi o nalTr i alCo ur t ,af o r e dat e d,ar ehe r e b yr e i ns t at e d.Noc o s t s . SOORDERED. Dav i de ,Jr .( Chai r man) ,Be l l o s i l l o ,Pang ani ban andQui s umb i ng ,JJ. , c o nc u r . Pe t i t i o n gr ant e d.Judg me ntr e v e r s e d and s e tas i de ,t hato ft hec o ur taq uoand o t he ro r de r sr e i ns t at e d. —Onc ea c as e hasbeen dec i ded one way ,t hen ano t herc asei nvol vi ng No t e s . e x a c t l yt hes a mepo i nta ti s s ues ho ul db ed e c i d e di nt hes a mema nne r .(TayChun Suyv s .Co ur to fApp e a l s,229SCRA151[ 1994] ) Thet e s to fi de nt i t yo fc a us e so fa c t i o nl i e sno ti nt hef o r mo fa na c t i o nbuto n whe t he rt hes a mee v i d e nc ewo ul ds u pp o r ta nde s t a bl i s ht hef o r me ra ndt hep r e s e nt c a us e sofac t i o n Me .( ndi o l av s .Co ur to fAppe al s,258SCRA492[ 1996] ) ——o 0o ——
497
©Copy r i ght2015Cent r al BookSuppl y , I nc .Al l r i ght sr es er v ed.