482 Phil. 47
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court DISMISSES the appeal without prejudice.”[4]The assailed Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
“x x x. [Respondent] Philippine Village Hotel, Inc. (PVHI) has several outstanding accounts totallingConsequently, petitioner interposed an appeal to the CA and claimed that the trial court had erred in (a) issuing the writ of preliminary injunction, (b) granting the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and (c) declaring the MOA effective and valid.[6]P152 million in favor of [petitioner] Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Due to PVHI’s default in its monthly amortization, [petitioner] on April 23, 1987 filed separate applications for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgages securing said obligations with the City Sheriff of Pasay City. After several legal and judicial skirmishes pertaining to the propriety of the applications for extrajudicial foreclosure of said mortgages, the legal impediments to said proceedings were finally eliminated. So, on October 13 and 14, 1988, the foreclosure proceedings were held and the GSIS emerged as the buyer at auction of the mortgaged properties. On May 11, 1989, GSIS filed an Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession before the Regional Trial Court, Branch III, Pasay City docketed therein as LRC Case No. 3079. On August 16, 1989, said court issued the writ of possession applied for.
“Meanwhile, the PVHI and GSIS amicably settled their dispute. On December 13, 1989, they entered into a Memorandum of Agreement by virtue of which the accounts of PVHI in favor of the GSIS were completely settled. Under the MOA, the total obligation of PVHI to GSIS was fixed atP300 million to be paid in the manner therein specified. It was further stipulated that the MOA was subject to the approval of the Office of the President and Commission on Audit.
“Of theP300 million obligation, PVHI was able to pay on timeP30 million. x x x.
“On March 5, 1990, PVHI filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages with the court a quo seeking for a judicial declaration of the validity and effectivity of the MOA and to compel GSIS to accept payment of the outstanding obligation ofP270 million. This Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 90-52272 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2 in Manila. On March 6, 1990, the said court issued a Temporary Restraining Order restraining GSIS and the Sheriff of Pasay City from implementing the writ of possession issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch III of Pasay City in LRC No. 3079 and from consolidating title to the properties covered by the foreclosed mortgages. This was followed with the issuance by the court a quo of a writ of preliminary injunction.
“The proceeding in the action for specific performance went its normal course until the PVHI has presented its evidence and rested its case. At this stage of the proceeding, PVHI filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The GSIS opposed said motion. On June 16, 1993, the court a quo rendered a Partial Summary Judgment confirming the validity of the MOA and directing PVHI to pay P 270 million to GSIS and the latter to accept the same and then to comply with all its obligations under the MOA.”[5]
In more direct language, the issue is simply whether the CA -- on appeal -- may validly pass upon the Partial Summary Judgment issued by the RTC, considering that the latter has not adjudged the amount of recoverable damages. Should this issue be decided affirmatively, a corollary one is whether the MOA is valid.“I.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it dismissed the appeal on procedural technicality instead of deciding the case on the merits.
- Whether the trial court’s Partial Summary Judgment is a decision on the merits, which necessitates the adjudication of petitioner’s appeal below on the merits and not on a mere technicality.
- Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals has the power and jurisdiction to pass upon the merits and/or validity of the Partial Summary Judgment.
- Whether circumstances present require the Court of Appeals, or even the Supreme Court, to pass upon the merits of the appealed case rather than dismiss the same on a mere technicality.
“II.
Whether the separate and corresponding approvals of the Office of the President and the Commission on Audit on the subject Memorandum of Agreement is a sine qua non for the effectivity of the said Contract.”[11]
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby grants the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, confirms the validity and effectivity of the subject Memorandum of Agreement dated December 13, 1989, allows x x x PVHI to pay theIt is clear from the above that only the issue of the validity of the subject MOA has been settled. Just as clearly, “trial on the issue of damages” is yet to take place; thus, the case has not come to a close. The Partial Summary Judgment is therefore not reviewable by ordinary appeal to the CA.P270 Million balance of the settlement price within ninety days from the finality of this O[r]der, and, lastly, orders x x x GSIS, upon such full payment of the settlement price, to comply with all its obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement by delivering to [respondent] the Deed of Conveyance on the main hotel building and the chattels subject matter of the said agreement, together with the deed of absolute sale over the hotel annex referred to therein, in favor of x x x PVHI, and by canceling the debenture bonds mentioned in said agreement. Trial on the issu[e] of damages shall resume on July 5/7, 1993 at 8:30 in the morning at which time x x x GSIS shall present the evidence-in-chief on said issue.” (Emphasis supplied)
“Section 1. Subject of appeal. – x x xGranting arguendo that the exception was applicable, petitioner should have filed a Record on Appeal -- not a Notice on Appeal -- with the trial court, which would necessarily keep the records in order to be able to resolve the recoverable damages, if any.[18]
“No appeal may be taken from:x x x x x x x x x
“(g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom;”