Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 74816 March 17, 1987
ERNESTO R. RODRIGUEZ, JR., ERNESTO LL. RODRIGUEZ III, SACHA DEL
ROSARIO, JOSE . GENITO, ZENAIDA Z. RODRIGUEZ, a!" ENECERIO MONDIA,
petitioners,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE AELLATE COURT a!" DA#TONA CONSTRUCTION $
DE%ELOMENT CORORATION, respondents.
Pelaez, Adriano & Gregorio Law Office for petitioners.
Balgos & Perez Law Office for respondents.

ARAS, J.:
Before Us is a petition to review by certiorari 1) respondent court's decision which sets
aside the order of default rendered by the trial court and 2) respondent court's resolution
dated April 18, 198 denyin! petitioners' "plaintiffs#appellees' therein) $otion for
e%tension of ti$e to file $otion for reconsideration of its decision. 1
&he antecedent facts of the case are as follows'
(laintiffs "petitioners herein) filed on )ece$ber 1, 198*, an action for abate$ent of a
public nuisance with da$a!es a!ainst defendant "private respondent herein). After
bein! !ranted four "+) e%tensions of ti$e to file an answer, defendant $oved to dis$iss
the co$plaint on ,ebruary 2-, 1981 upon the !round that the lower court has no
.urisdiction to hear the instant case and for lac/ of cause of action. 0owever, the $otion
was denied by the court on April 1, 1981, a copy of which decision was received by the
defendant on April 21, 1981. 2n 3ay 4, 1981 defendant filed a $otion for
reconsideration which $otion was denied on 5uly -, 1981.
6nstead of filin! an answer, petitioner filed with Us in 7.8. 9o. 4-491, )aytona
:onstruction ; )evelop$ent :orporation vs. 8odri!ue<, et al. a $otion for e%tension of
ti$e to file a petition for review, but it never filed one, pro$ptin! Us to issue a resolution
dated 2ctober 4, 1981 infor$in! the parties and the trial court that no petition for review
was filed within the period that e%pired on Au!ust 14, 1981.
Upon $otion of plaintiffs, the court declared the defendant in default on 9ove$ber +,
1981, and authori<ed the plaintiffs to present evidence ex-parte. Upon learnin! of the
said order, the defendant on 9ove$ber 9, 1981 filed a $otion to set aside the order of
default and a $otion to ad$it answer with counterclai$ which $otions were denied by
the lower court in an order dated 9ove$ber 21, 1981.
2n 5une 1*, 1982, the court a quo rendered .ud!$ent for the plaintiffs and a!ainst
defendant, its dispositive portion readin! as follows'
=0>8>,28>, .ud!$ent is hereby rendered as follows'
1. )eclarin! the operation of the ce$ent hatchin! plant of the defendant corporation as a
nuisance and orderin! its per$anent closure?
2. 2rderin! the defendant to pay plaintiff >rnesto 8odri!ue<, 5r. the a$ount of
(24*,***.** as $oral da$a!es and the a$ount of (4,***.** as no$inal da$a!es?
1. 2rderin! the defendant to pay plaintiff >rnesto @@. 8odri!ue< 666 the a$ount of
(2**,***.** as actual da$a!es, the a$ount of (4**,***.** as $oral da$a!es and the
a$ount of (4,***.** as no$inal da$a!es?
+. 2rderin! the defendant to pay plaintiff AA:0A del 8osario the a$ount of (2*,***.**
as actual da$a!es, the a$ount of (4*,***.** as $oral da$a!es and the a$ount of
(4,***.** as no$inal da$a!es?
4. 2rderin! the defendant to pay plaintiff Benaida B. 8odri!ue< the a$ount of
(1**,***.** as actual da$a!es, the a$ount of (1**,***.** as $oral da$a!es and the
a$ount of (4,***.** as no$inal da$a!es? and
. 2rderin! the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the a$ount of (4*,***.** as attorney's
fees, plus the costs of suit.
A2 28)>8>). "pp. 1#+, 8ecord on Appeal)
6n an order dated 5uly 9, 1982, the trial court upon $otion of plaintiffs !ranted e%ecution
pendin! appeal it indeed appearin! as alle!ed in the $otion that the continued
operation of the ce$ent batchin! plant of the defendant poses a C!reat $enace to the
nei!hborhood, both in point of health and property.C
2n 5uly 21, 1982, defendant filed a petition for relief which was however denied by the
lower court. 2n 5uly 29, 1982, defendant filed a petition for in.unction with the
6nter$ediate Appellate :ourt which found the petition un$eritorious.
&
&he appellate
court pro$ul!ated on 2ctober 4, 1981, a decision denyin! due course to defendant's
petition.
6ts $otion for reconsideration havin! been denied by the Appellate :ourt, defendant
went on appeal by certiorari to the Aupre$e :ourt "7.8. 9o. *9-) which, after the
sub$ission of plaintiffs' co$$ent and defendant's reply thereto, denied its petition for
lac/ of $erit.
&he petition for in.unction havin! been denied by both the 6A: and this :ourt, defendant
pursued the re$edy of appeal in respondent 6A:, assi!nin! the followin! errors.
6. &0> &86A@ :2U8& >88>) =0>9 6& )>:@A8>) A((>@@A9& 69 )>,AU@&
)>A(6&> &0> ,A:& &0A& 6&A ,A6@U8> &2 ,6@> 6&A A9A=>8 29 &63> =AA )U>
A2@>@D &2 &0> 9>7@67>9:> 2, 6&A :2U9A>@ A9) )>A(6&> &0> ,A:& &0A&
&0> 32&629 &2 )6A36AA &0A& 6& 0A) ,6@>) :2U@) 0AE> E>8D =>@@ A&22)
AA &0> A9A=>8 2, &0> A((>@@A9&.
66. &0> &86A@ :2U8& >88>) =0>9 6& AAAU3>) 5U86A)6:&629 2E>8 &0> :AA>
A9) =0>9 6& 8>9)>8>) 5U)73>9& BD )>,AU@& A7A69A& &0> A((>@@A9& 29
782U9)A A9)F28 BAA6A 92& A@@>7>) 69 &0> :23(@A69& ,6@>) A7A69A& &0>
A((>@@A9&.
666. &0> &86A@ :2U8& >88>) =0>9 6& )6) 92& A@@2= 8>@6>, ,823 5U)73>9&
69 &0> ,A:> 2, &0> 8>AA29A (8>A>9&>) &2 6& AA BAA6A ,28 AU:0 8>@6>,.
6E. &0> &86A@ :2U8& >88>) =0>9 )>A(6&> &0> A((>A@ 0AE697 B>>9 )U@D
(>8,>:&>), 6& )>&A69>) &0> :AA> =6&0 6& A9) &0>8>A,&>8, 6AAU>) A9
A@6AA =86& 2, >G>:U&629 (>9)697 A((>A@ =6&02U& A((82(86A&> (8628
92&6:> &2 &0> A((>@@A9&. "pp. 1#2, Appellant's Brief)
2n 3arch 21, 198, respondent court pro$ul!ated its decision, the decretal portion of
which is as follows'
=0>8>,28>, the )ecision appealed fro$ is hereby reversed and set aside and another
one entered, re$andin! the case to the court of ori!in for further proceedin!s and
thereafter, to render .ud!$ent accordin!ly.
9o pronounce$ent as to costs.
9otice of respondent :ourt's decision was received by plaintiffs#appellees thru counsel
on April 1, 198. (laintiffs filed on April 14, 198 a $otion for e%tension of 1* days fro$
April 18, 198 or up to 3ay 18, 198 to file a $otion for reconsideration. 0owever, on
3ay 1*, 198, they filed a 2+#pa!e $otion for reconsideration.
3eanwhile, on April 21, 198, defendant's opposition to the $otion for e%tension and
counter#$otion to enter final .ud!$ent were received by plaintiffs. (laintiffs countered
with a reply filed April 29, 198. "Anne% C:#2C) (laintiffs' counsel was surprised to
receive on April 2+, 198, respondent :ourt's resolution dated April 18, 198, denyin!
the $otion for e%tension. (laintiffs reHuested respondent :ourt to treat their aforesaid
reply filed on April 29, 198 as a $otion for reconsideration of the said resolution of April
18, 198, received by the$ on April 21, 198, the reHuest bein! contained in their
opposition dated 3ay 22, 198, to defendant#appellant's $otion to stri/e out the said
opposition attached thereto as Anne% :#1 C 9either the $otion for reconsideration
"converted fro$ the reply filed on April 29, 198) nor the $otion for reconsideration of
the decision itself was acted upon by respondent court.
0ence this petition to review, petitioners alle!in! that C8espondent court's challen!ed
resolution purportin! to deny appellees' $otion for e%tension of ti$e to file a $otion for
reconsideration is a nullity because the decision in Haalu!as ". #apson case,
'
solely
relied on by the said resolution has been $ade by the Aupre$e :ourt to operate
prospectively and thereby rendered inapplicable to parties situated as petitioners are, in
order precisely to spare the$ fro$ unfair and un.ust deprivation of their ri!ht to appeal.C
6n 2ur resolution, pro$ul!ated 3ay 1*, 198 in the 0abaluyas case itself "7.8. 9o.
-*894), =e set aside the ori!inal .ud!$ent therein, thus'
0owever, the law and the 8ules of :ourt do not e%pressly prohibit the filin! of a $otion
for e%tension of ti$e to file a $otion for reconsideration of a final order or .ud!$ent.
6n the case of Gis "s. $ourt of %irst &nstance "8* (hil. 1*), the :ourt dis$issed the
petition for certiorari and ruled that the failure of defendant's attorney to file the petition to
set aside the .ud!$ent within the re!le$entary period was due to e%cusable ne!lect,
and, conseHuently, the record on appeal was allowed. '(e $ourt did not rule t(at t(e
)otion for extension of ti)e to file a )otion for new trial or reconsideration could not e
granted.
6n the case of *oque "s. Gunigundo "Ad$inistrative :ase 9o. 18+, 3arch 1*, 19-9, 89
A:8A 1-8), a division of the :ourt cited t(e Gis decision to support a state$ent that a
$otion to e%tend the re!le$entary period for filin! the $otion for reconsideration is not
authori<ed or is not in order.
&he 6nter$ediate Appellate :ourt
4
is sharply divided on this issue. Appeals have been
dis$issed on the basis of the ori!inal decision in this case.
After considerin! the able ar!u$ents of counsels for petitioners and respondents, the
:ourt resolved that the interest of +ustice would be better served if the ruling in the
ori!inal decision were applied prospecti"el! fro) t(e ti)e (erein stated '(e reason is
t(at it would e unfair to depri"e parties of t(eir fig(t to appeal si)pl! ecause t(e!
a"ailed t(e)sel"es of a procedure w(ic( was not expressl! pro(iited or allowed ! t(e
law or t(e *ules. ... "pp. 1#+? 8esolution dated 3ay 1*, 198 in 7.8. 9o. -*894?
e$phasis supplied)
&his :ourt further elucidated'
1). Beginning one )ont( after t(e pro)ulgation of t(is *esolution, the rule shall be strictly
enforced that no )otion for extension of ti)e to file a )otion petition for new trial or
reconsideration $ay be filed with the 3etropolitan or 3unicipal &rial :ourts, the 8e!ional
&rial :ourts, and the 6nter$ediate Appellate :ourt. ,uc( a )otion )a! e filed onl! in
cases pending wit( t(e ,upre)e $ourt as the court of last resort, which $ay in its sound
discretion either !rant or deny the e%tension reHuested. "p. +, e$phasis supplied)
&he above new rules are $ade effective no earlier than 5une 1*, 198. 6n the instant
case, respondent :ourt's decision was received by plaintiffs on April 1, 198. (laintiffs
or petitioners herein filed on April 14, 198 a $otion for e%tension of 1* days fro$ April
18, 198 or up to 3ay 18, 198 to file a $otion for reconsideration. 2n 3ay 1*, 198,
plaintiffs filed their $otion for reconsideration. (laintiffs' $otion for e%tension of ti$e was
not intended for delay but upon showin! of !ood cause, to wit' Cfor lac/ of $aterial ti$e
due to heavy pressure of wor/ on the part of petitioners' counsel presently ta/in! char!e
thereof, what is $ore the counsel handlin! this case was doin! so for the first ti$e in
substitution of Atty. >$$anuel (elae<, who was recently appointed (hilippine
A$bassador to the U.AC
6t is clear therefore that petitioners' $otion was based on !ood cause and was filed
opportunely $a/in! the act of respondent :ourt unwarranted in denyin! petitioners'
$otion for e%tension of ti$e to file its $otion for reconsideration.
Another i$portant issue raised by the petitioners is that the Csub.ect decision which
purports to set aside the order of default rendered by the trial court is a nullity because
respondent court arbitrarily i!nored in !rave abuse of discretion a$ountin! to lac/ of
.urisdiction 1) the conclusive effect of the trial court's final and unappealed order
denyin! defendant's $otion to set aside the default order,C and 2) the res +udicata effect
of the appellate court's final .ud!$ent in the in.unction case afore$entioned upholdin!
the trial court's order !rantin! e%ecution of its 5ud!$ent pendin! appeal and,
necessarily, the default order as well 1) the law of the case effect of the appellate court's
e%press rulin! in the said in.unction case sustainin! the default order.
(etitioners' contentions $erit our consideration.
6t has been 2ur consistent rulin! that a default order, bein! interlocutory, is not
appealable but an order denyin! a $otion or petition to set aside an order of default is
not $erely interlocutory but final and therefore i$$ediately appealable.
(
Aince the trial court's order of 9ove$ber 11, 1981, denyin! defendant's $otion to set
aside the order of default was appealable but was not appealed by defendant, the
necessary conclusion is that the default order beca$e final. :learly therefore,
respondent :ourt co$$itted a !rave abuse of discretion in disre!ardin! the finality of
the default order.
&he validity and finality of the default order was upheld by the .ud!$ent of the Appellate
:ourt in the in.unction case "which passed upon the $erits of the issuance of an order
of e%ecution pendin! appeal) by virtue of the principle of res +udicata and the doctrine re
the law of the case.
&here is no Huestion that there were !ood reasons for the trial court to issue the order of
e%ecution pendin! appeal. &he order cate!orically stated that there was a need for the
closure and stoppa!e of the operation of defendant's ")aytona :onstruction) ce$ent
batchin! plant because it posed Ca !reat $enace to the nei!hborhood both in point of
health and property.C &he trial court thus stated'
,ro$ the uncontroverted evidence presented by the plaintiffs, there is hardly any
Huestion that the ce$ent dust co$in! fro$ the batchin! plant of the defendant
corporation is in.urious to the health of the plaintiffs and other residents in the area. &he
noise, the vibration, the s$o/e and the odor !enerated by the day and ni!ht operation of
the plant $ust indeed be causin! the$ serious disco$fort and untold $iseries. 6ts
operation therefore violates certain ri!hts of the plaintiffs and causes the$ da$a!e. 6t is
thus a nuisance and its abate$ent .ustified. ")ecision, p. 4? p. 9*, 8ollo)
after ta/in! into consideration evidence presented by plaintiffs "petitioners herein) as
follows'
&he evidence shows that the defendant is a do$estic corporation duly or!ani<ed and
e%istin! under the laws of the (hilippines with business address of 242 )on 3ariano
3arcos Avenue "actually Aouth Bu<uarre!ui Avenue), Iue<on :ity. 6t was issued by the
Iue<on :ity !overn$ent a business per$it ">%hibit B) for the $anufacture of road and
buildin! concrete $aterials such as concrete a!!re!ates, with ce$ent batchin! plant.
A$on! the conditions set forth in the per$it are that the said batchin! plant shall "1)
institute $easures to prevent dust e$ission durin! the $anual char!in! of ce$ent fro$
ba!s to the receivin! hopper of the buc/et elevator of the batchin! plant? "2) re$ove all
sedi$ent deposit in the settlin! of tan/ for process water and proper $aintenance should
be observed at all ti$es. =hile the ori!inal per$it issued to the defendant stated that its
operation at the place shall Cnot "be) beyond )ec. 11, 19-9C ">%hibit B#2), it was
so$ehow allowed to operate way beyond said period.
(laintiff >rnesto @@. 8odri!ue< 6ll testified that he has three parcels of residential lots
ad.acent to the )aytona co$pound. 0e infor$ed the :ourt that his property, with an area
of 8,892 sHuare $eters has been over#run by effluence fro$ the ce$ent batchin! plant of
the defendant. &he sedi$ent settled on the lots and all for$s of ve!etation have died as a
result, and the land tre$endously di$inished in value. 0is three lots are located in a
pri$e residential <one and each sHuare $eter in the area is easily valued at (4**.**.
=hile he would li/e to sell at least a part of his property, he finds no buyer because of its
condition. 6t would cost hi$ no less than (24*,***.** to be able to repair the da$a!e
done to his property, and since its present condition has been e%istin! durin! the five
years, he clai$ed that the interest on his loss would be about (4,***.**. 0e has a!reed
to his counsel's fee of (2**,***.**. Benaida 8odri!ue< testified that she owns a lot with
an area of 1,4** sHuare $eters. &wo thirds of this area has been da$a!ed by the
ce$ent dust, e$anatin! fro$ the defendant's ce$ent batchin! plant. &he continous flow
of ce$ent dust into her property affected her deep well, their source of drin/in! water,
and $ost of their fruit#bearin! and orna$ental trees dried up. Ahe also said that she has
had sleepless ni!hts and beca$e nervous as a result of the batchin! plant operation.
>ven her previous pedi!reed poodles have been afflicted by all sorts of illnesses, $any of
the$ dyin! in the process. Ahe clai$ed to have sustained da$a!es a$ountin! to
(1-*,***.**.
AA:0A del 8osario testified that her house has to close its windows $ost of the ti$e
because of the dust pollution and her precious plants have been destroyed by the ce$ent
powder co$in! fro$ the constant traffic of truc/s and other vehicles carryin! the product
of the batchin! plant passin! throu!h her area. Ahe clai$s da$a!es a$ountin! to $ore
than (1**,***.**.
A che$ical en!ineer, Ale%ander :ru<, said that the effluence deposited on the properties
of >rnesto @@. 8odri!ue< 666 and Benaida 8odri!ue< has a very hi!h (0 11.8, and the soil
is hi!hly al/aline and cannot support plant life? that pollution co$in! fro$ the batchin!
plant can cause sto$ach disorder and s/in proble$s? that the place of >rnesto @@.
8odri!ue< 666 is bare of !rass and the trees are dyin!, ">%hibits 5, 5#1 and 5#2 and that
there is also a hi!h de!ree of calciu$ on the property in Huestion.
=itness 7uido @. Iuiban a civil en!ineer, testified that on the basis of his e%a$ination of
the property of 8odri!ue< 6 6 6 affected by the pollution, it would cost at least (24*,***.**
for the e%cavation fillin!, concretin! of canal and rental of eHuip$ent to repair it or restore
it to its status Huo ante.
@awyer >rnesto 8. 8odri!ue<, 5r., the -*#year old father of both >rnesto 6ll and Benaida
B. 8odri!ue<, sub$itted a $edical certificate that he had recently been ta/en ill with
acute bronchial asth$a, hypertension and atherosclerotic heart disease. ">%hibits @, @#1
to @#+). 0is physician, a specialist !raduate fro$ the University of @ondon and connected
with various hospitals in 3anila, advised hi$ a!ainst e%posure to environ$ental alle!ens,
specifically ce$ent dust and pollution. 0e also sub$itted as e%hibits various newspaper
clippin!s ">%hibit 3 and e%cerpts fro$ a boo/ ">%hibits 9 and 9#1 showin! that pollution
can irritate the eye, sear lun!s and destroy ve!etation, raise blood pressure, increase
cholesterol levels, interfere with sleep, cause ulcer, tri!!er heart attac/s and the li/e? that
it is the co$$on deno$inator of respiratory diseases, especially asth$a chronic
bronchitis, bronchial asth$a and e$physe$a and that polluted air can develop
abnor$alities in lun! function.
)r. 8aul 6. del 8osario, a nei!hborin! physician, testified that he had treated several
patients who traced their sic/ness to the pollution caused by defendant )aytona batchin!
plant. 0e said that ce$ent dust produces broncho#pul$onary obstructive diseases,
broncho fibriotic lesions which $ay produce cardio pul$onary co$plications, and the
people livin! in the nei!hborhood of the batchin! plant are the $ost susceptible to these
diseases. 0e reported $any cases of bronchial asth$a in both children and adult who
live in the vicinity of the ce$ent batchin! plant and these cases have been inter$ittently
ad$itted and dischar!ed fro$ the Iuirino @abor 0ospital where he presently wor/s as a
resident physician. 0e had intended to open a $edical clinic at his residence but he could
not do so because the washin!s fro$ the ce$ent $i%ers are du$ped on the access road
in front of his house and when these washin!s are dried up they pollute the
nei!hborhood, renderin! his intended $edical clinic unfit and i$practical for the treat$ent
of patients, particularly those sufferin! fro$ respiratory ail$ents.
Another lawyer, >liseo Ala$pay, 5r., who li/ewise resides a few $eters away fro$ the site
of the )aytona batchin! plant, testified that the said plant is certainly in.urious to the
health? that the ce$ent dust are a!ents of lun! ail$ents, i$pair the !rowth of plants and
even /ill the birds in their ca!es? that it is a de$onstrable nuisance because its
uncontrolled en!ine noise and ni!ht lon! poundin! prevent the nei!hborhood fro$ bein!
able to sleep soundly and peacefully. 0e told the court that there was a ti$e when he felt
li/e or!ani<in! the whole nei!hborhood into a de$olition tea$ to forcibly dis$antle the
entire )aytona plant because Cthe authorities concerned apparently have chosen to close
their eyes and leave us to our $iserable pli!ht.C 0e said that the ho$es in the co$$unity
all loo/ dirty and dusty because of the pollution that the batchin! plant of the defendant
causes. ")ecision in 6n.unction :ase, A:#7.8. 9o. 1+*2#A(, pp. 1*#1+)
Anent the default order, the appellate court in the in.unction case said'
,ro$ the fore!oin!, it appears that petitioner was recreant in failin! to file an answer after
respondent .ud!e denied its $otion to dis$iss the co$plaint. &he $otion to dis$iss was
denied in the order of the lower court under date of April 1, 1981, a copy of which was
received by petitioner on April 21, 1981. A $otion for reconsideration of the order of
denial filed by petitioner on 3ay -, 1981 was denied by said court on 5uly -, 1981.
6nstead of filin! an answer pro$ptly, petitioner filed with the Aupre$e :ourt a $otion for
e%tension of ti$e to file a petition for review, ut it ne"er filed one, pro$ptin! the
Aupre$e :ourt to issue a resolution dated 2ctober 4, 1981 infor$in! the parties that no
petition for review was filed within the period that e%pired on Au!ust 14, 1981. 6nspite of
the Aupre$e :ourt's resolution, petitioner still failed to file any answer or pleadin! to
arrest the runnin! of the prescriptive period. 6t was only on 5uly 21, 1982, when petitioner
filed its (etition for 8elief which was nine -./ )ont(s after the Aupre$e :ourt's resolution
was issued. (etitioner's assertion in its (etition for 8elief that the failure to file the answer
was caused by Cthe unforseen sic/ness of its corporate secretary who has custody of the
records necessary for the preparation of its defenseC cannot be ta/en without $uch doubt
and hesitation. (etitioner did not even point out who was the supposed corporate
secretary or e%plain why the records were in the possession of the corporate secretary
instead of the counsel handlin! the case. ")ecision in 6n.unction case, p. 1? e$phasis
supplied)
=ith reference to defendant's alle!ation that it thou!ht that the period within which to
answer "after its $otion to dis$iss had been denied) had been suspended by its havin!
filed a petition for review before the Aupre$e :ourt, sa$e is without $erit. &he
circu$stances of the case point to a deliberate desire to delay' the corporation,
!overned as it is by /nowled!eable business e%ecutives, should have ta/en steps to
prevent its bein! declared in default. &he corporation waited si% ") $onths before
verifyin! the status of the case' in the $eanti$e it had been declared in default, a
.ud!$ent by default had been rendered a!ainst it, e%ecution was already pendin!
before it wo/e up to file the case at hand.
=e a!ree with 5ustice @uis A. 5avellana in his concurrin! opinion in the in.unction case
before the appellate court, thus'
(etitioner's conduct here appears to $e to be tainted with fraud and intended si$ply to
delay the disposition of the case. =hen its $otion to dis$iss the co$plaint was denied,
and its $otion for reconsideration of that denial was, Unwise denied, it $anifested its
intention to elevate these orders to the Aupre$e :ourt on a petition for review. Det, it did
nothin! to this end. &he purpose of the ploy is obvious. 2nce it had announced its
intention to !o to the Aupre$e :ourt, it effectively suspended the proceedin!s in the trial
court, or, at least, that was the effect. &his enabled it to continue with its operations and it
would have done so indefinitely if it had not been declared in#default and private
respondents allowed to present their evidence. &t is quite apparent t(at petitioner reall!
(ad no intention of ele"ating t(e case to t(e ,upre)e $ourt ot(erwise, it would not (a"e
allowed t(e extended period gi"en to it ! t(e ,upre)e $ourt to lapse wit(out filing t(e
petition. Or, if it was in good fait(, t(ere it s(ould (a"e infor)ed t(e trial court t(at it was
no longer pursuing its re)ed! in t(e ,upre)e $ourt after it (ad decided t(at it is no
longer a"ailing of suc( re)ed!. &nstead, it concealed t(is fact fro) t(e trial court and t(e
ad"erse part!, and allowed )atters to ta0e t(eir course. &t was not until it recei"ed t(e
ad"erse decision t(at it franticall! soug(t to set t(ings rig(t & do not t(in0 t(at petitioner
deser"es an! consideration for trifling wit( t(e ad)inistration of +ustice. "pp. 1#+?
e$phasis supplied)
=0>8>,28>, the assailed decision and resolution are hereby A>& AA6)>, and a new
.ud!$ent is hereby rendered 8>69A&A&697 the decision of the trial court with the
$odification that all awards for no)inal da$a!es are hereby eli$inated. :osts a!ainst
private respondent.
A2 28)>8>).
%ernan -$(air)an/, Padilla and $ortes, ##., concur.
Bidin, #., too0 no part.