Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A

BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS

FIVE STAR MARKETING CO., INC. V. BOOC (Cheng)  Five Star Marketing Co. is incorporated by the children of
[GR. No. 1143331; October 5, 2007] the late Antonio Booc and Ong Chuy Tiok, namely,
“Remedies when a motion to set aside judgment is denied. Sheikding, Rufino, Felisa, Salvador, Jose, and Roque.
Remedy can be either Rule 38 or Rule 65.” o They decided to create a corporation, Five Star
Marketing Company, Inc., whose shares of stock
Recit-Ready: reflected the amount of their contribution in
Facts: This case arose from an ejectment case commenced purchasing the subject property.
by the petitioner before the MTCC which was later  In 1982, when the existing structure in the subject
elevated to the RTC on appeal under Rule 40 of the property was completely razed by fire, petitioner
Rules of Court. Aggrieved by the RTC's reversal of constructed thereon a four-storey building financed mainly
the MTCC decision, petitioner directly elevated the by a loan secured from Northern Mindanao Development
case to this Court on the ground of pure questions of Bank using the subject property as collateral.
law – the propriety of remanding the case for further o The entire ground floor and the fourth floor were
proceeding in the MTCC. allotted to Rufino, the second floor to the family
matriarch, Ong Chuy Tiok, and the third floor to
Issue/s: Whether a direct appeal on the decision of the Sheikding, all of whom occupied the same rent-
RTC’s decision, as an appellate court, under Rule 45 to SC free.
on the ground of pure question of law is allowed? – No.  After several years later of rent-free rate, the board of
directors of petitioner passed and approved a resolution
Held: Even if petitioner raises only questions of law which terminating the free-rental privilege given to all the
require the interpretation and application of the occupants of the building
rules of procedure laid down by the Rules of Court. o On March 15, 1999, petitioner notified all the
However, considering that the assailed decision was occupants that it had withdrawn all privileges
rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate granted to them.
jurisdiction as it was brought before it from the o It likewise notified them of the rental rates of the
MTCC, petitioner should have elevated the case to units concerned and further required any interested
the CA under Rule 42 via the second mode of appeal, occupant to negotiate and enter into a lease
instead of appealing directly before this Court under agreement with petitioner.
Rule 45.  On May 25, 1999, petitioner filed an action for unlawful
detainer against respondent before the MTCC, Iligan City.
 The issue of the controversy arose on the fact the counsel
Facts: of the defendant was asking for a postponement due to
unpostponable personal engagement. This was denied as
GOMEZ-ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A
BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS

there was no proper service of such motion to the o Hence petitioner filed a petition under Rule 45 to
petitioner. the SC arguing that respondent's motion to reset
o On July 24, 1999, respondent, through counsel, sent the preliminary conference and his subsequent
petitioner a telegram asking for a postponement of motion for reconsideration of its denial are violative
the preliminary conference set on August 3, 1999. of the Rules on Summary Procedure and the Rules
o On July 26, 1999, respondent's counsel filed a of Court, particularly Rule 70, Sec. 13 regarding
Motion to Reset the preliminary conference set for prohibited pleadings and motions.
August 3, 1999 to August 24, 1999.
o Petitioner, through counsel, opposed the motion Issue/s:
arguing that the motion violated the provision of  Issue 1: Whether a direct appeal on the decision of the
Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil RTC’s decision, as an appellate court, under Rule 45 to SC
Procedure. on the ground of pure question of law is allowed? – No.
o On August 3, 1999, the scheduled preliminary  Issue 2: Whether it was correct for the RTC to remand the
conference pushed through. Petitioner and its case back to the MTCC.
counsel appeared but respondent and his counsel
failed to appear despite due notice.
o On August 18, 1999, the MTCC issued an Order Held/Ratio:
denying respondent's motion to reset on the  In several cases, the Court had the occasion to clarify the
grounds that it failed to comply with the required three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, namely:
explanation why service was not done personally o a) ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where
pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the Rules and that judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action
counsel failed to establish that his motion is by the RTC in the exercise of its original
meritorious. jurisdiction;
 Consequently, the court ruled on the basis of the facts  The first mode of appeal is governed by Rule
alleged in the complaint. 41, and is taken to the CA on questions of
o Respondent appealed the decision to the RTC. fact or mixed questions of fact and law.
 On January 14, 2000, the RTC issued an Order setting o b) petition for review, where judgment was
aside the decision appealed from, as well as the order rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
denying respondent's motion for reconsideration and jurisdiction; and
consequently remanding the case to the court of origin.  The second mode, covered by Rule 42, is
o The RTC reiterated that judgment by default is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of
frowned upon because it is something which is only law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
a little less than a denial of due process. o c) petition for review to this Court.
GOMEZ-ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A
BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS

 The third mode provided for by Rule 45, is


elevated to this Court only on questions of
law.
 A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what
the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a
question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts.
o For a questions to be one of law, the same must not
involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.
o The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what
the law provides on the given set of circumstances.
 In the present case, petitioner comes before this Court
raising a pure question of law. It impugns the propriety of
decision of the RTC which would remand the ejectment
case to the MTCC for the reception of evidence and for
further proceedings on the issue of ownership of the
subject property.
 Clearly, petitioner raises only questions of law which
require the interpretation and application of the rules of
procedure laid down by the Rules of Court.
o However, considering that the assailed decision
was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction as it was brought before it
from the MTCC, petitioner should have elevated the
case to the CA under Rule 42 via the second mode
of appeal, instead of appealing directly before this
Court under Rule 45.
o As a wrong appeal was filed, the case should have
been dismissed, but in interest of justice, the SC
also discussed it based on merits.