RULE 15
CORAZON CRUZ vs. MANILA INTERNAT. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
GR No. 184732 – September 09, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe
SUBJECT:
FACTS:
Petitioner executed a Contract of Lease with MIAA over a property, in order to establish a
commercial arcade for sublease to other businesses.
She averred that MIAA failed to inform her that part of the leased premises is subject to an easement
of public use since the same was adjacent to Parañaque River.
As a result, she was not able to obtain a building permit as well as a certificate of electrical inspection,
leading her consequent failure to secure an electrical connection for the entire leased premises.
Due to lack of electricity, Cruz’s tenants did not pay rent; hence, she was unable to pay her own rental
obligations to MIAA.
Further, since some of Cruz’s stalls were located in the easement area, the MMDA demolished them,
causing her to suffer actual damages.
Thus, Cruz send MIAA her rental computation; however, instead of accepting Cruz’s payment, MIAA
sent a letter terminating the lease contract.
Petitioner then filed before the RTC Pasig a complaint for breach of contract, consignation, and
damages against MIAA.
MIAA filed a MD hinged on the following grounds:
o Violation of the certification requirement against forum shopping under Sec. 5, Rule 7 given that
the lease contract subject of the Pasig case is the same actionable document subject of the
Manila Case which is a complaint for partial annulment of contract also filed by petitioner before
RTC Manila; and
o Improper venue, since in the complaint for annulment of contract, as well as the
verification/certification and annexes attached thereto, it is indicated that petitioner is a
resident of San Miguel, Manila.
RTC: issued an order dismissing petitioner’s complaint for breach of contract due to forum shopping since
both the Pasig and Manila cases are founded on the same actionable document between the same parties.
Petitioner’s MR was denied. Thus, petitioner filed a notice of appeal.
CA: Dismissed the Pasig case. While petitioner did not commit forum shopping, the Pasig case remained
dismissible on the ground of improper venue as petitioner was bound be her judicial admission that her
residence was actually Manila and not is San Juan.
Petitioner’s MR was denied. Hence, this petitioner.
ISSUE: WON petitioner’s appeal should be dismissed on the basis of improper venue.
Petitioner contends that the in ruling on the issue of improper venue, the CA practically allowed
MIAA to pursue a lost appeal, although the latter did not file a notice of appeal within the proper
reglementay period nor pay the prescribed docket fees.
MIAA maintained that despite raising the issue on improper venue before the CA, the RTC did not
categorically rule on the said issue. As such, it claimed that it could raise the foregoing ground as one
of the issue before the CA.
HELD:
Jurisprudence dictates that the appellee’s role in the appeal process is confined only to the task of refuting the
assigned errors interposed by the appellant. Since the appellee (defending party) is not the party who
instituted the appeal and accordingly has not complied with the procedure prescribed therefor, he merely
assumes a defensive stance and his interest solely relegated to the affirmance of the judgment appealed from.
Keeping in mind that the right to appeal is essentially statutory in character, it is highly erroneous for the
appellee to either assign any error or seek any affirmative relief or modification of the lower court’s judgment
without interposing its own appeal.
In the case at bar, the Court finds that the CA committed a reversible error in sustaining the dismissal of the
Pasig case on the ground of improper venue because the same was not an error raised by Cruz who was the
appellant before it. Pursuant to the abovementioned principles, the CA cannot take cognizance of MIAA’s
position that the venue was improperly laid since, being the appellee, MIAA’s participation was confined to
the refutation of the appellant’s assignment of errors. As MIAA’s interest was limited to sustaining the RTC-
Pasig City’s judgment, it cannot, without pursuing its own appeal, deviate from the pronouncements made
therein. In particular, records bear out that the RTC-Pasig City, while granting MIAA’s motion to dismiss,
found the latter’s argument on improper venue to be erroneous. Hence, given that the said conclusion was not
properly contested by MIAA on appeal, the RTC-Pasig City’s ruling on the matter should now be deemed as
conclusive. Corollary, the CA should not have taken this ground into consideration when it appreciated the
case before it. By acting otherwise, it therefore committed a reversible error, which thereby warrants the
reversal of its Decision.
Petitioner granted. CA decision set aside.
