G.R. No. 183035 January 9, 2013
OPTIMA REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
HERTZ PHIL. EXCLUSIVE CARS, INC., Respondent.
FACTS: Optima entered into a
Contract of Lease with respondent over a 131-square-meter office unit and a
parking spot in the Optima Building for a period of three years. On 9 March
2004, the parties amended their lease agreement by shortening the lease period
to two years and five months, commencing on 1 October 2003 and ending on 28
February 2006. Renovations in the Optima Building commenced in January and
ended in November 2005. As a result, Hertz alleged that it experienced a 50%
drop in monthly sales and a significant decrease in its personnel’s
productivity. It then requested a 50% discount on its rent for the months of
May, June, July and August 2005.9 On 8 December 2005, Optima granted the
request of Hertz. However, the latter still failed to pay its rentals for the
months of August to December of 2005 and January to February 2006, Optima
informed it that the lease would expire on 28 February 2006 and would not be
renewed. On 30 January 2006, Hertz filed a Complaint. In
that Complaint, Hertz prayed for the issuance of a TRO to enjoin petitioner
from committing acts that would tend to disrupt respondent’s peaceful use and
possession of the leased premises. On 14 March 2006, Summons for the Unlawful
Detainer Complaint was served on Henry Bobiles, quality control supervisor of
Hertz, who complied with the telephone instruction of manager Rudy Tirador to
receive the Summons. On 28 March 2006, or 14 days after service of
the Summons, Hertz filed a Motion for Leave of Court to file Answer with
Counterclaim and to Admit Answer with Counterclaim. MTC ruled infavor of
Optima. Hertz appealed the MeTC’s Decision to the RTC. RTC ruled in favor of
Optima. On 18 June 2007, the RTC denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration
of its assailed Decision. On appeal, the CA ruled that, due to the improper
service of summons, the MeTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
respondent Hertz. Motion for reconsideration was also dismissed by the CA.
Hence this petition
ISSUE: (1)WON MeTC acquired
jurisdiction (2)WON there is litis pendentia
HELD: (1) Yes, The Court ruled
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the person by summons or voluntary
appearance of the defendant. In this case, the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over
the person of respondent Hertz by reason of the latter’s voluntary appearance
in court. One who seeks affirmative relief from court appears voluntarily and
is deemed submitted to the jurisdiction of the court however party who make
special appearance to challenge the court jurisdiction cannot be considered as
to submitted to its authority. As shown from the records of the case, Hertz ask
for a affirmative relief.
(2) Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) Identity of parties, or at least their representation of the same interests in both actions;(2) Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and(3) Identity Here, while there is identity of parties in both cases, the court find that the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for under the Complaint for Specific Performance and those under the present Unlawful Detainer Complaint are different.
No comments:
Post a Comment