G.R. No. 184732; September 9, 2013
CORAZON S. CRUZ under the name and style, VILLA CORAZON CONDO DORMITORY, Petitioner, vs. MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Respondent.
FACTS
On December 7, 2005, petitioner Corazon S. Cruz filed a complaint for breach of contract, consignation, and damages against respondent Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 68 (docketed as Civil Case No. 70613, the “Pasig case”). The complaint stemmed from a Contract of Lease executed on August 12, 2003, over a property in Pasay City. Cruz alleged MIAA failed to inform her that part of the leased premises was subject to an easement of public use adjacent to the Parañaque River, which prevented her from obtaining necessary permits and an electrical connection, leading to demolished stalls, unpaid rent from her tenants, and her own failure to pay rent to MIAA from December 2004 onwards. MIAA moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of forum shopping and improper venue. MIAA argued forum shopping existed because the same lease contract was the subject of another complaint for partial annulment of contract (Civil Case No. 1129918, the “Manila case”) filed by Cruz before the RTC of Manila, Branch 1. MIAA also contended venue was improperly laid in Pasig, as Cruz, in her pleadings in the Manila case, indicated her residence was in San Miguel, Manila. The RTC-Pasig City dismissed the complaint on August 15, 2006, primarily on the ground of forum shopping, and also observed Cruz was not the real party-in-interest as the named lessee was Frederick Cruz. However, the RTC did not sustain MIAA’s improper venue argument, holding that Cruz’s allegation of being a resident of San Juan, Metro Manila, in her complaint should be taken at face value unless proven otherwise. Cruz appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In her Appellant’s Brief, she assigned errors regarding forum shopping, real party-in-interest, and procedural aspects of the motion to dismiss. MIAA, in its Appellee’s Brief, refuted Cruz’s arguments and re-raised its argument on improper venue. The CA, in its Decision dated November 27, 2007, affirmed with modification the RTC’s dismissal. It held there was no forum shopping and that Cruz was the real party-in-interest (as Frederick Cruz signed as her attorney-in-fact). However, the CA dismissed the Pasig case on the ground of improper venue, finding Cruz was bound by a judicial admission in the Manila case that her residence was in Manila, not San Juan.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Cruz’s appeal on the basis of improper venue.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA’s Decision and Resolution, and remanded the case to the RTC-Pasig City for further proceedings. The Court ruled that the CA committed a reversible error by sustaining the dismissal on the ground of improper venue because that issue was not raised by the appellant, Cruz. Jurisprudence holds that an appellee (MIAA) who has not filed its own appeal cannot obtain any affirmative relief or modification of the lower court’s judgment. The appellee’s role is confined to refuting the errors assigned by the appellant and defending the judgment in its favor, even on grounds not raised in the decision appealed from. In this case, the RTC-Pasig City had explicitly rejected MIAA’s improper venue argument. Since MIAA did not file a notice of appeal or pay docket fees to challenge this specific ruling, its interest was limited to sustaining the RTC’s judgment of dismissal (which was granted on other grounds). The CA, therefore, could not take cognizance of and rule on the improper venue issue raised by MIAA in its appellee’s brief, as doing so effectively allowed MIAA to pursue a lost appeal. The RTC’s ruling against improper venue, not having been properly contested by MIAA on appeal, should be deemed conclusive.
