509 Phil. 87
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
In view of the foregoing, and considering that the purpose of the action is to terminate the lease by reasons of (a) expiry of the term which is on a month-to-month basis and (b) for failure to pay the rentals or comply with the terms of the contract, and considering, further, that demand had been made on time and that the same was coursed thru the Barangay for conciliation, as provided for by law but no amicable settlement was reached, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, Leoncio Ho and Wayne Hosin Cham who are ordered:Petitioners appealed from the MTC Decision, and on June 21, 1995, the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC), Branch 39, through Judge Francisco X. Velez, issued a Joint Decision affirming in toto the Joint Decision of the MTC, with costs against petitioners.
1. That they and all other persons claiming rights under them, if any to vacate the respective premises in question and surrender peaceful possession thereof, voluntarily to, plaintiff;
2. To pay to plaintiff the amount of P6,000.00 and P9,000.00 per month respectively plus interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum from September 1992 up to the date of compliance of this Decision; and
3. To pay plaintiff the reduced sum of P10,000.00 each as attorney's fees and the costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED.[2]
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered after the decision of this Court dated June 21, 1995 has been earlier reconsidered and set aside, hereby reversing the joint decision dated February 4, 1994 in Civil Case No. 142495-CV entitled "Pedro S. Lacsa versus Leopoldo Ho" and in Civil Case No. No. 142496-CV entitled "Pedro S. Lacsa versus Wayne Hosin Cham." Finding the herein plaintiff-appellee to have the propensity in filing cases without a real cause of action against the defendants, taking undue advantage of judicial processes even if he has no more right in the premises in question, this Court hereby orders him to pay:Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing decision and a motion for inhibition. Consequently, pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration, Judge Vega inhibited himself per his Order dated November 12, 1996 and ordered the re-raffle of the case for further consideration.[8]
1. In Civil Case No. 94-69470, to the defendant-appellant Leoncio Ho (a) moral damages in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00); (b) exemplary damages in the amount of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos; (c) the reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos and (d) costs; and
2. In Civil Case No. 94-69471, to the defendant-appellant Wayne Hosin Cham (a) moral damages in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00); (b) exemplary damages in the amount of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos; (c) the reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos and (d) costs.
SO ORDERED.[7]
WHEREFORE, premises considered the motion for reconsideration is hereby granted. The questioned decision dated June 4, 1996 is hereby set aside. The decision dated June 21, 1995 is reinstated.Petitioners did not appeal from the RTC Order dated June 9, 1998 and instead, filed on December 28, 1998, a special civil action for certiorari with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 50066. On January 17, 2000, the CA rendered the assailed Decision dismissing the petition. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied per CA Resolution dated March 29, 2000, they filed the present petition for review.
Accordingly, as the decision in these cases have long become final and executory on August 2, 1995, the Officer in Charge is hereby directed to enter the decision in the book of judgment of this Court and to immediately remand the record of these cases to the Court A Quo for further proceeding.
SO ORDERED.[9]
The Court of Appeals erred in concluding:The petition must be dismissed.I- that the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant tenants of the Decision dated June 21, 1995 of Assisting Judge of Branch 39 was filed out of time; and
II- that even if the said Decision is not yet final, nevertheless the Motion for Reconsideration cannot be allowed without violation of the rule disauthorizing a tenant from disputing the title of his landlord as a conclusive presumption.[10]
... It is clear from the records that Judge Vega of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 39, after he had rendered a decision setting aside its earlier joint decision in which it had affirmed in toto the Metropolitan Trial Court decision, inhibited himself from further proceeding with the case on appeal. Consequently, the appealed cases had to be re-raffled to another Branch which shall then resolve the pending motion for reconsideration of the complainant.Nowhere in the disquisition of the CA did it refer to the motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision dated June 21, 1995. Neither did the CA rule on its admissibility or merit. Petitioners' arguments are therefore seriously flawed.
Indeed, the appealed cases were re-raffled to Branch 34 of herein respondent Judge. Respondent Judge, upon taking cognizance of the re-raffled case, then had to continue with the case at whatever stage it was. .... Evidently, the said Order could not be considered as a reversal of a decision of a concurrent and co-equal court but rather as a continuation of the same jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 94-69740 and Civil Case No. 94-69741 before Judge Lopez in place of Judge Vega. A case once raffled to a branch belongs to that branch unless re-raffled or otherwise transferred to another branch in accordance with established procedure (Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Sergio D. Mabuhay, RTC, Branch 24, Manila, 292 SCRA 694) In this case, there was proper re-raffling of the appealed cases as a consequence of the inhibition of Judge Vega. The appealed cases were re-raffled to Branch 34 of herein respondent Judge who thereupon acquired jurisdiction over the cases in place of the former judge. ...
It also follows that the Order dated October 27, 1998 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 21, presided by herein respondent Judge Rogelio M. Pizarro, issuing the writ of execution as well as the subsequent service of herein respondent Sheriff of the said writ of execution and a notice of levy, are all proper and in accordance with their respective judicial functions and duties.[12]
PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE ROMULO A. LOPEZ COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE AND WHIMSICAL ERROR TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION BY CAPRICIOUSLY SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION RENDERED BY A CO-EQUAL CONCURRENT AND COORDINATE COURT OF THE SAME JURISDICTION MORE THAN TWENTY THREE (23) MONTHS OR FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF A MERE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.As a matter of fact, in their petition before the CA, they stated that: "[P]etitioners are filing this Petition for Review (sic) on Certiorari under Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, an ORIGINAL or INDEPENDENT ACTION and not a continuation or part of the judgment complained of ..."[14]II
PUBLIC RESPONDENT PAIRING JUDGE ROGELIO M. PIZARRO COMMITTED GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE ERROR BY CAPRICIOUSLY AND WHIMSICALLY IMPLEMENTING THE "NULL AND VOID" DECISION BASED UPON CONCOCTED FALSIFIED COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT WHICH HAD BEEN SUPERVENED BY A PRIOR FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISION OF A CONCURRENT COORDINATE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE CITY OF MANILA.[13]
Once a judgment becomes final, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.[18]WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit.