Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51656:gr-164632-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:49:01+00:00

Document:
URETHANE TRADING SPECIALIST, INC., Petitioner, v. EDWIN ONG and LETICIA ONG, Respondents.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the February 12, 20041 and the July 26, 20042 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No 79251.
The dispute between the parties started in June 2000 when petitioner filed a Complaint3 for sum of money against the respondents (docketed as Civil Case No. 8142) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City. In the proceedings, respondents were declared in default, and petitioner presented evidence ex parte.4 On October 30, 2001, the MeTC rendered its Decision5 ordering respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the petitioner P295,026.01 with legal interest as actual damages, and 25% thereof as attorney's fees.
Discontented, petitioner timely petitioned for the issuance of a writ of certiorari before the CA (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 79251). The appellate court, however, in the assailed February 12, 2004 Resolution,15 dismissed the petition on the ground that an interlocutory order is not the proper subject of the special civil action of certiorari . In the further assailed July 26, 2004 Resolution,16 it denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Whether or not, under existing laws, the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by Respondents should be dismissed on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) That the cause of action is barred by the statutes of limitation or by laches; and (2) The claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's petition has been waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished.
The Court denies the petition and affirms the ruling of the CA.
Here, the denial by the RTC of petitioner's motion to dismiss is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.chanrobles virtual law library The CA is, therefore, correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari .
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Edgardo P. Cruz, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 229-230.
18 Malicdem v. Flores, G.R. No. 151001, September 8, 2006, 501 SCRA 248, 256-257.
19 Section 4, Rule 16, of the Revised Rules of Court pertinently provides: "If the motion is denied, the movant shall file his answer within the balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11 to which he was entitled at the time of serving his motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event, computed from his receipt of the notice of the denial. x x x"
20 La Campana Development Corporation v. See, G.R. No. 149195, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 584, 590.
21 David v. Rivera, 464 Phil. 1006, 1014 (2004).
22 Nicolas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NOS. 175930-31 and G.R. NOS. 176010-11, February 11, 2008, 544 SCRA 324, 336; David v. Rivera, id.; Choa v. Choa, 441 Phil. 175, 182-183 (2002).
23 Malicdem v. Flores, supra note 18, at 257.
24 Balo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129704, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 227, 234.
25 See EspaÃ±o, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 983, 987 (1997).
26 See Pineda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevarra, G.R. No. 143188, February 14, 2007, 515 SCRA 627, 637; EspaÃ±o, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, id.
27 Balo v. Court of Appeals, supra note 24, at 240.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.