BACHRACH CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINES PORTS AUTHORITY, respondents.

Carla Nikasia V. Roxas – JD4a

CASE CASE 21: 21:

Remedial Law Review 1

BACH BACHRA RACH CH CORP CORPOR ORA ATION, ION, petit petitio ione nerr, vs. vs. THE HONO HONORA RABL BLE E COURT COURT OF APPEALS an PHILIPPINES PORTS AUTHORIT!, AUTHORIT!, responents.

FACTS:

The petitioner and the Repuli! entered into a lease a"reement #or a term o# ninet$%nine $ears !overin" & spe!i#ied area' (lo!k 1)* and (lo!k 1)+' 1) +' lo!ated at the ,anila -ort rea. /t was then then under under the the !ont !ontro roll and mana" mana"em emen entt o# the the Dire Dire!t !tor or o# Lands Lands.. 0hen 0hen the the !ontr !ontrol ol and and mana"ement mana"ement o# the -ort rea was trans#err trans#erred ed to the respondents respondents'' throu"h throu"h xe!utive xe!utive 2rder No. 3&1' the rental rates o# the petitioner was in!reased $ 1'+**. 5owever' the petitioner re#used to pa$. The respondent respondent initiated unlaw#ul detainer pro!eedin" a"ainst a"ainst the petitioner petitioner.. The lower  !ourt rendered the de!ision orderin" the evi!tion o# the petitioner and was a##irmed in toto when appealed to the Re"ional Trial Court. The !ase was elevated to the Court o# ppeals $ wa$ o# a  petition #or review' however the !ourt a##irmed the de!ision o# the RTC.  motion #or  re!onsideration was #iled' still it was put on hold due to the pendin" sumission o# a !ompromise a"reement. The parties #ailed to sumit the !ompromise a"reement' thus the denial o# the motion #or re!onsideration. 5en!e' the de!ision o# the appellate !ourt e!ame #inal and exe!utor$. ex e!utor$. ,eanwhi ,eanwhile' le' while while the motion motion #or re!ons re!onside iderat ration ion is pendin" pendin"'' the petiti petitione onerr #iled #iled a !ompla !omplaint int a"ains a"ainstt the respond respondent ent #or re#usi re#usin" n" to honor honor a !omprom !ompromise ise a"reeme a"reement nt per#e!t per#e!ted ed  etween the parties durin" their !on#eren!e that superseded the e6e!tment !ase. Thus' the pra$er  #or spe!i#i! per#orman!e. The respondent #iled a motion #or a writ o# exe!ution in the e6e!tment !ase. The p etitioner  #iled an appli!ation #or the issuan!e o# a temporar$ restrainin" order and a writ o# preliminar$ in6un!tion to en6oin the issuan!e o# the writ o# exe!ution. The respondent !ountered $ #ilin" a motion #or preliminar$ hearin" on its a##irmative de#enses alon" with a motion to dismiss. 5owever' the trial !ourt issued an order "rantin" the appli!ation o# the p etitioner. The respondent #iled a petition #or !ertiorari and prohiition e#ore the Court o# ppeals' however it was dismissed. The !ourt ruled that it was insu##i!ient i# #orm and sustan!e #or it #ail to atta!h a !erti#ied to !op$ o# ea!h o# the assailed order o# the trial !ourt. 7ndaunted' the respondent #iled a new petition alle"in" that sin!e it had onl$ re!eived a !op$ o# the assailed resolution o# the trial !ourt' the re#ilin" i# the petition with the Court o# ppeals within a period o# less than two months #rom the date o# su!h re!eipt was well within the reasonale time re8uir re8uireme ement nt under under the Rules Rules #or a spe!ia spe!iall !ivil !ivil a!tion a!tion #or !ertiora !ertiorari ri.. /n the meantime' meantime' the resolution whi!h dismissed the petition #or !ertiorari and prohiition #iled $ the respondent  e!ame #inal. /n the newl$ #iled petition' the respondent invoked that the respondent Jud"e a!ted without' without' or in ex!ess o# 6urisdi!ti 6urisdi!tion' on' or with ause o# dis!retion dis!retion in re#usin" re#usin" to take !o"ni9an!e' !o"ni9an!e' aide and a!knowled"e the #inal 6ud"ement o# the Court o# ppeals whi!h is enou"h 6usti#i!ation #or the dismissal o# the !ase "rounded on res 6udi!ata. The Court o# ppeals rendered the de!ision nulli#$in" and settin" aside the orders o# the RTC and orderin" the dismissal o# the !omplaint o# the petitioner. 5en!e' this petition. ISSUE:

0hether or not the spe!i#i! per#orman!e !ase should e held arred $ the unlaw#ul detainer !ase on the "round o# res 6udi!ata. HEL":

 N2. There are #our :4; essential !onditions whi!h must !on!ur in order that res  6udi!ata ma$ e##e!tivel$ appl$' vi9< :1; The 6ud"ment sou"ht to ar the new a!tion must e #inal= :&; the de!ision must have een rendered $ a !ourt havin" 6urisdi!tion over the su6e!t matter  and the parties= :3; the disposition o# the !ase must e a 6ud"ment or order on the merits= and :4; there must e etween the #irst and se!ond a!tion identit$ o# parties' identit$ o# su6e!t matter' and identit$ o# !auses o# a!tion. /n the !ase at ar' There is no 8uestion aout the #a!t that all the #irst three elements o# res 6udi!ata are here extant= it is the #inal !ondition re8uirin" an identit$ o#   parties' o# su6e!t matter and o# !auses o# a!tion' parti!ularl$ the last two' i.e.' su6e!t matter and !ause o# a!tion' that presents a prolem. !!ordin" to the >upreme Court' the ultimate test in as!ertainin" the identit$ o# !auses o#  a!tion is said to e to look into whether or not the same eviden!e #ull$ supports and estalishes  oth the present !ause o# a!tion and the #ormer !ause o# a!tion. /n the a##irmative' the #ormer   6ud"ment would e a ar= i# otherwise' then that prior 6ud"ment would not serve as su!h a ar to the se!ond. The eviden!e needed to estalish the !ause o# a!tion in the unlaw#ul detainer !ase would e the lease !ontra!t and the violation o# that lease $ (a!hra!h. /n the spe!i#i!  per#orman!e !ase' what would e !onse8uential is eviden!e o# the alle"ed !ompromise a"reement and its rea!h $ --. ?urthermore' on the issue o# issuan!e o# writ o# preliminar$ in6un!tion as an improper  inter#eren!e with the 6ud"ment in the unlaw#ul detainer suit. The >upreme Court ruled that a#ter a  6ud"ment has "ained #inalit$' it e!omes the ministerial dut$ o# the !ourt to order its exe!ution. No !ourt' ne!essaril$' should inter#ere $ in6un!tion or otherwise to restrain su!h exe!ution. The rule' however' !on!ededl$ admits o# ex!eptions= hen!e' when #a!ts and !ir!umstan!es later transpire that would render exe!ution ine8uitale or un6ust' the interested  part$ ma$ ask a !ompetent !ourt to sta$ its exe!ution or prevent its en#or!ement. >o' also' a !han"e in the situation o# the parties !an warrant an in6un!tive relie#. videntl$' in issuin" its orders assailed $ -- in the latter@s petition #or !ertiorari and prohiition e#ore the Court o#  ppeals' the trial !ourt in the !ase at ar would want to preserve status 8uo pendin" its disposition o# the spe!i#i! per#orman!e !ase and to prevent the !ase #rom ein" mooted $ an earl$ implementation o# the e6e!tment writ. /n holdin" di##erentl$ and as!riin" to the trial !ourt "rave ause o# dis!retion amountin" to la!k or ex!ess o# 6urisdi!tion' the appellate !ourt' in our  !onsidered view' has !ommitted reversile error.