the plaintiff is in possession of the leased premises d Ordering the plaintiff

The plaintiff is in possession of the leased premises

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 14 pages.

the plaintiff is in possession of the leased premises;d) Ordering the plaintiff to pay attorney's fees in favor of the above-named defendants inthe sum of P36,000.00, aside from costs of suit.SO ORDERED.Upon motion of the Gojocco, the trial court amended the dispositive portion of its aforesaid decision in thatHuibonhua was ordered to pay each of Loretta Gojocco Chua and Severino Gojocco the amount of P540,000.00instead of P360,000.00 and that attorney's fees of P54,000.00, instead of P36,000.00, be paid by Huibonhoa.On the other hand, in Civil Case No. 102604, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila granted Huibonhoa's prayer thatthe case be excluded from the operation of the Rule on Summary Procedure for the reason that the unpaid rentssued upon amounted to P495,000.00. 12Thereafter, Huibonhoa presented a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,to suspend proceedings in the case, contending that the pendency of the action for reformation of contractconstituted a ground of lis pendensor at the very least, posed a prejudicial question to the ejectment case. TheGojoccos opposed such motion, pointing out that while there was identity of parties between the two cases, thecauses of action, subject matter and reliefs sought for therein were different.On May 10, 1985, after Huibonhoa had sent in her reply to the said opposition, Rufina G. Lim, through counsel,prayed that she be dropped as plaintiff, in the case, and counsel begged leave to withdraw as the lawyer of the latterin the case. Subsequently, Severino Gojocco and Loretta Gojocco Chua filed a motion praying for an order requiringHuibonhoa to deposit the rents. On March 25, 1986, the court below issued an Omnibus Order denying Huibonhoa's
Background image
2/25/2020G.R. No. 958974/14motion to dismiss, requiring her to pay monthly rental of P30,000.00 starting March 1984 and every monththereafter, and denying Rufina G. Lim's motion that she be dropped as plaintiff in the case. 13Huibonhoa moved forreconsideration of said order but the plaintiffs, apparently including Rufina, opposed the motion.On July 21, 1986, Severino Gojocco and Huibonhoa entered into an agreement that altered certain terms of thelease contract in the same way that the agreement between Huibonhoa and Rufina G. Lim "novated" the contract. 14On March 24, 1987, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila issued an Order denying Huibonhoa's motion forreconsideration and the Gojoccos' motion for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, and allowing Huibonhoa aperiod of fifteen (15) days within which to deposit P30,000.00 a month starting March 1984 and every monththereafter. 15Huibonhoa interposed a second motion for reconsideration of the March 25, 1986 order on the groundthat she had amicably settled the case with Severino Gojocco and Rufina G. Lim. She therein alleged that onlyP15,000.00 was due Loretta G. Chua. She informed the court of the decision of the Makati Regional Trial Court inCivil Case No. 9402 and argued that since that court had awarded the Gojoccos rental arrearages, it would be
Background image
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 14 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture