REPUBLIC OF THE
Third Judicial Division
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Guiguinto Bulacan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-versus-
CIVIL CASE NO. xxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, INC,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
Explanation for Non-Appearance
With Opposition
and Prayer to Release Garnished Amount
(Re: Manifestation and Motion dated June 08, 2009)
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, by way of opposition to the Manifestation and Motion unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges, that:
Explanation for Non-Appearance on the Motion’s Scheduled Hearing
With due respect and indulgence of this Honorable Court, herein Plaintiff failed to appear on the scheduled hearing[1] on defendant’s Manifestation and Motion because receipt of which by the herein Plaintiff was on the same very date wherein the instant case was set for hearing. A copy of Defendant’s Manifestation and Motion is hereto attached as Annex “A” showing the date of receipt thereof by the herein Lawfirm.
By way of Opposition to the aforecited Manifestation and Motion, the arguments raised are absurd and bereft with legal bases.
Arguments raised are mere rehash or the same arguments raised in all proceedings this case went thru from the MTC to the higher courts.
The arguments raised by the defendants are just only repetitious of their arguments raised in the entire proceedings from Municipal Trial Court up to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court however stood with the decision of the MTC.
To show defendant’s repetitious and rehash arguments, said arguments are hereby quoted in verbatim:
In the present case, defendant is not withholding possession of the subject warehouse as it had already vacated the same after the expiration of the contract of lease on July 16, 2003. Thus, defendant alleged in its Answer the following:
“4. Herein defendant admits allegations mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Complaint with qualification that there is no more obligation on the part of the defendant to pay rentals considering that it has already vacated the subject premises after the expiration of the Contract of Lease;
5. As already stated above, the defendant has already vacated the subject premises after the expiration of the Contract of Lease and it is no longer in possession thereof, hence, allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint is specifically denied;
x x x x x x x x x x
10. Contrary to the allegations of the plaintiff in paragraph 5 of its Complaint, herein defendant is no longer in possession of the subject premises as it had already vacated the same after the expiration of the Contract of Lease on July 16, 2003;”
The foregoing admissions made by the defendant in its Answer only shows that it had already vacated the warehouse subject matter of this case as early as July 16, 2003 after the expiration of the contract of lease. This fact is supported by a Certification dated January 16, 2004, certifying that defendant, had already vacated the warehouse known as Lot 3-1A as early as July 16, 2003.[2]
Despite this argument, the
“Defendant’s allegation that it has vacated the warehouse upon the expiration of the contract is self-serving and, in the face of the factual findings of the trial court, deserves no probative value at all.
Premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO”
Not contented with the above RTC Decision, defendant filed their Motion for Reconsideration dated September 14, 2004 and elucidated the same arguments, to wit:
Thus, the Regional Trial Court issued an Order dated October 11, 2004, dispositive of which read as follows:
“For resolution is defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the decision dated September 02, 2004.
Finding no compelling grounds to modify the aforesaid decision, the instant motion is hereby DENIED. This Court incorporates in this order the decision of September 02, 2004 by way of further support in this denial”
Again in attempt to reverse the aforecited decision by the Regional Trial Court, defendant filed a Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals with the same arguments they raised in their appeal at the Regional Trial Court, to quote in verbatim:
The Regional Trial Court gravely erred in affirming the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto Bulacan in the award of back rentals, attorney’s fees and damages against the defendant.[3]
This argument raised by the defendant above again sneered at by the Court of Appeals. On April 19, 2005 the Honorable Court of Appeals rendered a decision sustaining in its entirety both the decisions of the Municipal Trial Court-Guiguinto Bulacan and the Regional Trial Court-Malolos Bulacan, dispositive portion of which is hereby quoted:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed decision dated September 02, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11 of Malolos, Bulacan which affirmed in toto the decision dated May 11, 2004 of the Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan is also AFFIRMED”
Again not contented with the Decision of the Court of Appeals, Defendant elevated the instant case to the Supreme Court by way of Petition for Review and propounded the same arguments, to wit:
It has always been a consistent argument of the petitioner that an action for ejectment filed by the respondent should have been dismissed outright for lack of valid cause of action considering that the petitioner had already vacated the subject premises even before the filing of the complaint.[4]
Finally, in a Resolution dated May 02, 2006, the Honorable Supreme Court denied said Motion for Reconsideration, dispositive portion of which read as follows:
“Acting on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated February 06, 2006 which denied the petition and to submit a valid verification of nonforum shopping, the Court Resolves to DENY the motion with FINALITY, no compelling reason having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought” (Emphasis supplied).
Despite the above, Defendant desperately filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration to the Supreme Court and used anew the same and repetitious argument:
It is worth mentioning that this case was originally an action for Unlawful Detainer or an ejectment suit against a person who had already vacated the premises even before the filing of the original complaint in the Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan;
The record of the case shows that the original complaint was filed on November 10, 2003; however, herein petitioner had already vacated the subject premises as early as July 16, 2003 or after almost four (4) months from the time petitioner vacated the premises[5]
The Supreme Court outrightly denied the above said Second Motion for Reconsideration pointing out that said Second Motion is a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Court.
Clearly, the above trial and appellate courts sustained and adopted en toto the original decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto Bulacan.
Not only that, Defendant never surrendered the actual possession of the leased property to the herein Plaintiff during and within the trial stage of the instant case, and instead, chose to vindicate their rights if any, thru Appeals and Petition for Review to Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Fortunately, the Courts had spoken and ruled in favor to the herein Plaintiff.
The Supreme Court had already ruled with finality in favor to the herein Plaintiff. Hence, any questions on the merits of the instant case had already been put to rest and Defendant should ceased to be a “humming bird” harping the same song over and over again.
Computation of the total claims by the Plaintiff is based on the MTC decision
For defendants clarity on how the Plaintiff arrived at the total amount of claims pursuant to the MTC-Guiguinto Bulacan decision dated May 11, 2004 and Order of Execution, dispositive portion of which read as follows:
“WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
a. Ordering the defendant and all persons claiming rights under it, to immediately vacate the warehouse, with an area of 530 square meters, more or less, located at Guiguinto, Bulacan, and to surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff;
b. Ordering the defendant, to pay the plaintiff, the amount of P116,600.00 as unpaid rentals from July to October, 2003;
c. Ordering the defendant, to pay the plaintiff, such amount of rentals, which may become due after October, 2003, at the rate of P29,150.00 per month, until the defendant finally vacates the premises;
d. Ordering the defendant, to pay the plaintiff, the amount of P11,660.00, representing unpaid penalty for non-payment of the said rentals, from July to October, 2003;
e. Ordering the defendant, to pay the plaintiff, such amount of penalty, at 10% of the amount of monthly rentals as adjudged herein, per month, which may become due after October, 2003, until such rentals are fully paid;
f. Ordering the defendant, to pay the plaintiff, the amount of P50, 000.00 as attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.”
Based on the foregoing decision, Plaintiff’s total claims as of June 2009 are hereby computed as follows, to wit:
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AGAINST SAS AS PER COURT DECISION
a.) Rental Fee from July 16, 2003 to October 16, 2003 P116, 600.00
b.) 10% Penalty on Rental Fee from July 16, 2003
to October 16, 2003 11,660.00
c.) Rental Fee from October 16, 2003 to June 16, 2009
( 68 months X Php 29,150.00 per month) 1,982,200.00
d.) 10% Penalty on Rental Fee from October 16, 2003
to June 16, 2009 198,220.00
e.) Attorney's Fee 50,000.00
------------------------
Total P2, 358,680.00
==============
Based on the foregoing computation, the garnished amount at the Bank of the Philippine Island-Sindalan under Defendant’s Account No. 8823 is only TWO MILLION ONE HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY PESOS (P2,101,560.00). There was a shortage of P257, 120.00 which amount is still subject for Plaintiff’s recovery.
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that the Manifestation be DENIED for lack of merit.
Plaintiff hereby further prays that Bank of the Philippine Island-Sindalan Branch be ordered to release the garnished amount of TWO MILLION ONE HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY PESOS (P2, 101,560.00) to the herein Plaintiff.
Such other relief and remedies are also prayed for as are just and equitable under the premises.
[1] June 17, 2009 at 2:00 P.M.
[2] Defendant-Appellant’s Memorandum to the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan-Branch 11 dated August 04, 2004
[3] Petition for Review, Court of Appeals, 15 November 2004, CA GR. SP. No. 87207
[4] Petition for Review on Certiorari, Supreme Court, 11 November 2005, G. R. No. 169797
[5] Second Motion for Reconsideration, Supreme Court, 15 June 2006, G. R. No. 169797
No comments:
Post a Comment