GSIS v PHIL VILLAGE HOTEL, INC 00 SCRA 00 PANGANIBAN, September 21, 2004

NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court FACTS -Philippine Village Hotel, Inc. (PHILVIL) had outstanding accounts in favor of GSIS totaling P152M. Due to default in monthly amortization, GSIS filed separate applications for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgages securing said obligations with Pasay City Sheriff. Subsequently, the foreclosure proceedings were held and GSIS was highest bidder. GSIS filed an Ex-Parte Partition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession before RTC Pasay. RTC Pasay issued the writ applied for. -Philvil and GSIS subsequently amicably settled and entered into a MOA wherein Philvils total obligation was fixed at P300M. Philvil was only able to pay P30M and GSIS allegedly refused to accept the balance resulting to the filing of Philvil of a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages seeking for judicial declaration of the validity and effectivity of the MOA and to compel GSIS to accept payment of the outstanding obligation with RTC Manila. RTC issued a TRO to restrain GSIS and Pasay City Sheriff from implementing writ of possession and from consolidating title to the properties covered by the foreclosed mortgages. Writ of Preliminary Injunction subsequently issued. -PhilVill presented its evidence and rested its case, then filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment which GSIS opposed. RTC rendered Partial Summary Judgment confirming validity of MOA and directing Philvil to pay P270M to GSIS and for GSIS to accept the same and then to comply with all its obligations under the MOA. Trial on the issue of damages was scheduled to proceed on a different date. -GSIS appealed to CA. CA ruled that appeal was improper it should be a certiorari under R65 and dismissed the appeal in accordance with SC Circular No. 2-90 (inappropriate modes of appeal brought to SC and CA shall be dismissed) -GSISs contention: (1) The issue of the amount of liquidated damages may be subject of a separate appeal; (2) appeal should not be dismissed on a mere technicality, considering the amount of time already lost; (3) an interlocutory order may nevertheless be appealed by virtue of the exception under Rule 41.1(g). ISSUE WON CA on appeal may validly pass upon the Partial Summary Judgment issued by the RTC, considering that the latter has not adjudged the amount of recoverable damages HELD NO Ratio. A partial summary judgment does not finally dispose of an action, being merely an interlocutory order. What the rules contemplate is that the appeal from the partial summary judgment shall be taken together with the judgment that may be rendered in the entire case after a trial is conducted on the material facts on which a substantial controversy exists. [Guevarra v. Court of Appeals and Province of Pangasinan v. Court of Appeals] Reasoning. The whole action has not been disposed yet since the trial on the issue of damages is yet to start. -On argument that it falls under Rule 41.1(g): petitioner should have filed a RECORD ON APPEAL not a NOTICE ON APPEAL with the trial court, which would necessarily keep the records in order to be able to resolve the recoverable damages if any. -The question of damages is inseparable from that of the validity of the MOA. Indeed, the amount recoverable, if any, is dependent on the subsequent finding of the CA on the validity of the MOA. Should the appellate court reverse the RTC and hold that the MOA is invalid, the trial courts finding on the amount of recoverable damages would necessarily be reversed as well. -ON delay argument: What has delayed this case is not the application of the proper rules of procedure, but petitioners wrong mode of redress. Had it not chosen the wrong remedy, the main case would have perhaps been finally resolved by the trial court long ago. Disposition. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the challenged Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.