Booklight v. Tiu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Rudy O. Tiu filed a collection of sum of money case against petitioner Booklight, Inc. for unpaid rentals amounting to ₱465,587.50 for the period of August 2002 to February 2003, plus other charges. Petitioner had leased a space from respondent for its bookstore business, and although the lease expired on September 1, 2001, it continued to occupy the premises until February 28, 2003. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted respondent's application for a writ of attachment. Petitioner was declared non-suited for failure to file a pre-trial brief and to appear during the pre-trial conference. Despite motions for reconsideration and appeals, the denial of the motion to lift the order of non-suit was upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the RTC allowed the respondent to present evidence ex parte. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondent, ordering petitioner to pay unpaid rentals, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, unpaid electric bills, and security services expenses. The CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification, deleting the awards for legal interest on unpaid rentals, security services, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees. The CA denied petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. Petitioner argued that the CA failed to rule on its claim for a refund of advanced rental and deposit amounting to ₱109,440.00. Petitioner also contended that the electric bills should be deleted, and sought the deduction of these amounts from the unpaid rentals. Furthermore, petitioner claimed entitlement to the proceeds of the auction sale of its attached goods and garnished funds, amounting to ₱3,375,161.12, and prayed for the release of any balance thereof.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review purely factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of advanced rental and deposit. Whether petitioner is liable for the electric bills. Whether petitioner is entitled to the proceeds of the auction sale of its attached properties and garnished funds.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated July 31, 2013, and the Resolution dated July 21, 2014, of the Court of Appeals-Cagayan De Oro City in CA-G.R. CV No. 02154-MIN, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the review of factual issues: The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, and factual issues are generally beyond its scope of review. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts, and such determination is best left to the lower courts. Exceptions to this rule, such as grave abuse of discretion or misapprehension of facts, were not found to be present in this case. The underlying questions raised by the petitioner, concerning advanced rental, deposits, refunds, and the period covered by electric bills, necessitated an examination of evidence, thus rendering them factual in nature. The Court noted that the case was decided ex parte due to petitioner's failure to file a pre-trial brief and appear at the pre-trial, which resulted in the loss of its right to present evidence to support its claims. Therefore, the records were bereft of any evidence to substantiate petitioner's claims regarding advanced rental, deposits, or the specific period of the electric bills. On the claim for refund of advanced rental and deposit: The Court found no basis to deviate from the findings of the RTC and CA regarding the unpaid rentals and electric bills. Petitioner's failure to present evidence to support its claim of an advanced rental and deposit, and that these amounts were not refunded or utilized, was fatal to its case. Since the case proceeded ex parte against the petitioner, it lost the opportunity to present evidence to substantiate its counterclaims or defenses. The records did not contain any evidence to support the assertion that the advanced rental and deposit were not yet refunded or considered in the computation of unpaid rentals. On liability for electric bills: Similar to the claim for advanced rental and deposit, the Court found no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and CA concerning the electric bills. Petitioner failed to present evidence to definitively show that the electric bills pertained only to a month when it was no longer occupying the premises. The ex parte nature of the proceedings meant that petitioner could not introduce evidence to prove its alleged non-liability for the electric bills, which were allegedly for March 2003, after it ceased operations on February 28, 2003. The absence of evidence supporting this claim meant the RTC and CA's findings on this matter were upheld. On the proceeds of the auction sale: The Court held that the proceeds of the auction sale of attached properties were not a proper subject for review under Rule 45. The fact of the sale and the amount of its proceeds are factual matters that require an examination of evidence, which the Supreme Court generally cannot undertake. The Court noted the conflicting allegations between petitioner and respondent regarding the amount of the proceeds, highlighting that these are matters best presented and determined by the trial court during the execution of the final judgment. It was deemed premature for the Supreme Court to rule on the matter as no writ of execution had been issued. The Court also clarified that the satisfaction of judgment out of attached property is not mandatory, as indicated by the word "may" in Section 15, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, giving the sheriff discretion to proceed against other properties if necessary. The proper procedure is for the prevailing party to move for execution before the RTC.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court generally does not entertain purely factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, especially when the petitioner failed to present evidence due to being declared non-suited. Matters concerning the proceeds of an auction sale of attached properties are also factual and best determined by the trial court during the execution of judgment.