cucueco

CUCUECO V CA (GOLDEN L INTL) G.R. No. 139278 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; October 25, 2004 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS - In his complaint, complaint, Clement CUCUECO CUCUECO alleged alleged that sometime in 1985, he entered into a joint venture with with Golde Golden n “L” Films Films Intern Internati ationa onall and and its its LAPIDS, to co-p owner owners, s, the LAPIDS, co-pro rodu duce ce the the movi movie e “JIM “JIMBO BO” ” with with the cond condit itio ion n that hat Cucueco’s investment would be repaid first before that of  the Golden Films. Films. The proceeds from the showing reinvested in the production production of another were reinvested film entitled “MARUSO” starring Lito Lapid. Lapid. - Afte Afterr the shoot shooting ing of “MAR “MARUSO USO”, ”, Golden Golden Films, Films, without the knowledge and prior consent of Cucueco , sold sold the film film to Lea Producti Productions ons,, Inc. Inc. (LEA), (LEA), represented by Emilia Blas. Blas. LEA, however, however, failed to pay in full, so Golden Films withheld delivery of the film. - Meantime, Cucueco, upon request of Golden Films, paid SQ Laboratories the processing fee of the film “MARUSO” “MARUSO” in the amou mount of P82. P82.9T 9T to facilitate facilitate the recovery of his investment and share in turn,, SQ Labo Labora rato tori ries es the the joint joint ventu venture re.. In turn delivered delivered to Cucueco Cucueco the “master” copy and other copies of the film “MARUSO.” Subsequently, Emilia Blas and the Lapids demanded that that Cucu Cucuec eco o deli delive verr the the film film to them them but but he refused. He maintains that that the sale of “MARUSO” by Golden Films to LEA is void for lack of consent on his part, part, he being being a co-owner co-owner and co-produ co-producer cer of the film. - In their separate answers, the defendants denied  specifically specifically Cucueco’s material allegations allegations in the the insta instant nt compl complai aint, nt, raisi raising ng affirm affirmat ative ive defen defenses ses.. Meanwhile, LEA filed with RTC Manila, a complaint for specif specific ic perfor performan mance ce and damage damages s with applicat application ion for a prelimin preliminary ary injuncti injunction on seeking seeking to compel Golden Films and the Lapids to comply with thei theirr obli obliga gati tion on unde underr the the cont contra ract ct of sale sale of  “MARUSO.” In an amend amended ed compla complaint int,, LEA and  Emil Emilia ia Blas Blas impl implea eade ded d Cucu Cucuec eco o as addi additi tion onal al defendant. - The The two two case cases s were were cons consol olid idat ated ed befo before re RTC RTC Manila. - RTC: After a joint hearing on the application for PI, writ writ of prelim prelimina inary ry injunc injunctio tion n issued rest restra rain inin ing g LEA LEA and GOLD GOLDEN EN L from from takin aking g possession of any and/or prints of the film ‘MARUSO’ etc during the pendency of the two cases and until further order of the court. With respect to Cucuenco’s applicat application ion for an order order of attachm attachment ent,, the Court finds finds that the complai complaint nt is support supported ed by plaintif plaintiff’s f’s affidavi affidavitt of merit merit that proves proves that that there exists a suff suffic icie ient nt COA COA and and that that ther there e is no othe other r sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action. - This order was challenged by LEA and Emilia Blas in petition on for certio certiorar rarii with with the CA. The CA a petiti affirmed the assailed order with modification that the writ of preliminary attachment issued in Cucueco’s favor was annulled. - LEA and Emilia Blas brought it to SC in a petition for review on certiorari. certiorari. The main issue posed 

was whether a writ of preliminar preliminary y injunction injunction may still be issued issued after the effect effectivi ivity ty of a TRO. The The SC sust sustai aine ned d CA. CA. They They were were then then remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. It then then con conduct ducted ed the the prepre-tr tria iall but but was not not concluded. filed d a mo moti tion on for for - Subse Subseque quent ntly, ly, Cucue Cucueco co file summary judgment alleging that the order of RTC contains findings of fact and law, affirmed by the CA and SC. All the defendants opposed the motion on the ground that the RTC order is interlocuto interlocutory ry and that no factual finding finding was affirmed by CA and SC. On this motion, the RTC ruled: Declaring plaintiff co-owner and co-producer of  the film MARUSO. - Respondents Respondents filed an ordinary appeal from the tria triall cour court’ t’s s deci decisi sion on with with the the CA, CA, to whic which h petitio petitioner ner filed filed a Motion Motion to Dismiss Dismiss Appeal Appeal on the ground that respondents should have filed a petition for review on certiorari certiorari with this Court, as the case involves pure questions of law. - The CA then REVERSED REVERSED the appeale appealed d decision decision (summary judgment) and remanded to RTC. - CUCU CUCUEC ECO O then then filed filed this this petit petition ion for revie review w on certiorari. Petitioner’s Contentions - Mode of appeal taken is erroneous. Issues raised in the appeal were purely questions of law as the summary judgment rendered by the trial court was rendered rendered merely merely based based on the pleadings pleadings and docume document nts s on recor record, d, and and with without out any tria triall or reception of evidence. - Inasmuch as respondents failed to contradict the evidence evidence he presented, presented, they having focused on the issue of the propriety of the summary judgment and the applicatio application n of the “law of the case,” case,” the “correct “correctness ness or incorrec incorrectnes tness s of the conclusi conclusions ons draw drawn n by the the tria triall cour court” t” from from the the undi undisp sput uted ed evidence of petitioner also raises a question of law. ISSUES 1. WON the mode of appeal resorted to by private respondents from the Decision (Summary Judgment) of the trial court to the respondent COURT is proper 2. WON WON the the tria triall cour courtt corr correc ectl tly y rend render ered ed the the Decision (Summary Judgment) appealed from and in applying the Doctrine of the “Law of the Case” in the process 3. WON the CA decision is valid and binding HELD 1. NO Ratio The test of whether a question is one of  law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather rather,, it is whethe whether r the appellat appellate e court court can determine determine the issue raised without reviewing reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of  facts.

- When an appeal raises only pure questions of law 1, it is this this Court Court that that has has the sole sole juri jurisdi sdict ction ion to entertain the same same.. Appeals involving both questions of law and fact fall within within the exclusive exclusive appellat appellate e  jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. - A closer closer scrutiny scrutiny shows shows that the appeal actually actually involves involves purely purely questio questions ns of law. law. Respondents’ appeal calls for a determination of whether the  pleadings filed by the parties indeed tendered  a genuin genuine e issue issue as to the materia materiall facts. facts. In order to resolve this issue, the appellate court need only only to look look into into the the plea pleadi ding ngs, s, depo deposi siti tion ons, s, admi admiss ssio ions ns,, and and affi affida davi vits ts subm submit itte ted d by the the respect respective ive parties parties without without going into the truth truth or falsity of such documents. - Trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there there is clearl clearly y no genu genuin ine e issue issue as to any  any  material material fact . In othe otherr words words,, in a moti motion on for for summary judgment, the crucial question is: are the issues issues raised raised in the pleadings pleadings genuine, genuine , sham or fictitious, fictitious , as shown shown by affida affidavit vits, s, deposi depositi tions ons or admissions accompanying the motion?

2. YES Ratio “Law of the case” has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general   principles or not , so long as the facts on which such decision decision was predicated predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. - A court need not go into the probative value and/or evaluation of the evidence on hand to determine determine whether the doctrine of the “law of  the case” is applicabl applicable e in a given given case or not. In fact, a mere perusal of the pleadings, orders, and othe otherr docu docume ment nts s woul would d suff suffic ice e for for a cour courtt to determine the applicability of such doctrine. Reasoning It is undeniable that the appellate court did not make any finding of fact. What the appellate court did was simply apply the law as to the facts borne out by the allegations in the pleadings, and whatever conclusions the appellate court arrived at evidently involved questions of law. * Hence, the issues raised being pure questions of law, law, the the appe appell llat ate e cour courtt sho should uld have have dism dismis isse sed d resp respon onde dent nts’ s’ appe appeal al outr outrig ight ht

1

There is a “question of law” when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. There is a “question of fact” when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.

pursuant to SC Circular 2-90 2, which was the law prevailing at that time. 3. YES - Despi Despite te the the fact fact that that the CA should should not not have have reviewed this case when it was before it on ordinary  appeal, the Court finds it imperative to consider the CA’s decision as a valid and binding judgment on the case. Gine Gi nete te vs vs.. Co Cour urtt of Ap Appe peal als s:   The lawyer’ lawyer’s s negligence without any participatory negligence on the part of petitioners is a sufficient reason to set aside the resolutions resolutions of the Court of Appeals. Appeals. Aside from matters of life, liberty, honor or property which would would warrant warrant the suspension suspension of the rules of the most mandatory character and an examination and review review by the appellate appellate court of the lower court's findings of fact, the other elements that should be considered considered are the following: following: (1) the existence existence of  special or compelling compelling circumstances, circumstances, (2) the merits of the case, (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (4) a lack of any showing that that the the revie review w sough soughtt is merel merely y frivol frivolous ous and and dilatory, (5) the the other other party party will will not not be unjus unjustl tly y prejudiced. - In the present case, the trial court disregarded and misap misappre precia ciate ted d the alle allegat gatio ions ns in the the partie parties’ s’ respect respective ive pleading pleadings, s, and misappli misapplied ed the rules rules on summary judgment. judgment. A perusal of the records of  this this case case shows shows that that the partie parties’ s’ respe respectiv ctive e pleadings show that there are genuine issues of fact that necessitate formal trial. trial. Disposition Petitio Petition n for certiorari is DENIED DENIED.. CA decision decision and resolut resolution ion AFFIRMED AFFIRMED.. Records Records of the case case are are rema remand nded ed to RTC RTC MANI MANILA LA for for furt furthe herr proceedings.

2

Erroneous Appeals. -- An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. c) Raising issues purely of law in in the Court of Appeals, or appeal by wrong mode. -- If an appeal under Rule 41 is taken from the regional trial court to the Court of Appeals and therein the appellant raises only questions of law, the appeal shall be dismissed, issues purely of  law not being reviewable by said Court. …