Chanrobles Cpa Review Online: Civil Case No. 169296-Cv
Chanrobles Cpa Review Online: Civil Case No. 169296-Cv
Chanrobles Cpa Review Online: Civil Case No. 169296-Cv
titioner, v. MORNING STAR TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC., Respondent. : July 2015 - …
Sometime in June and in September 1998, the petitioner V-Gent, Inc. (V-Gent)
On June 24, 1998 and September 28, 1998, V-Gent returned a total of fifteen (15)
unused tickets worth $8,747.50 to the defendant. Of the 15, Morning Star refunded
only six (6) tickets worth $3,445.62, Morning Star refused to refund the remaining
nine (9) unused tickets despite repeated demands.
On December 15, 2000, petitioner V-Gent filed a money claim against Morning Star
for payment of the unrefunded $5,301.88 plus attorney's fees. The complaint was
raffled to Branch 2 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila and docketed as
Civil Case No. 169296-CV.
Online
Morning Star countered that V-Gent was not entitled to a refund because the tickets
were bought on the airline company's "buy one, take one" promo. It alleged that
there were only fourteen (14) unused tickets and only seven (7) of these were
refundable; considering that it had already refunded six (6) tickets (which is more or
less 50% of 14), then there was nothing else to refund.
Morning Star also questioned V-Gent's personality to file the suit. It asserted that the
passengers, in whose names the tickets were issued, are the real parties-in-interest.
On January 27, 2006, after due proceedings, the MeTC dismissed the complaint for
lack of a cause of action. Citing Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court,3 the MeTC
declared that, as agent of the passengers who paid for the tickets, V-Gent stood as
the real party-in-interest. Nevertheless, it still dismissed the complaint because V-
Gent failed to prove its claim by a preponderance of evidence.
Series
V-Gent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the case was docketed as Civil
Case No. 06-115050.
On September 25, 2006, the RTC granted the appeal after finding that V-Gent had
established its claim by a preponderance of evidence. It set aside the MeTC's
judgment and ordered Morning Star to pay V-Gent the value of the nine (9)
unrefunded tickets plus attorney's fees.
Morning Star filed a petition for review with the CA; the case was docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 97032. Morning Star questioned the RTC's appreciation of the evidence
and factual conclusions. It also reiterated its question about V-Gent's legal standing,
submitting once again that V-Gent is not the real party-in-interest.
On November 11, 2008, the CA granted the petition for review and dismissed V-
Gent's complaint. The CA held that V-Gent is not a real party-in-interest because it
merely acted as an agent of the passengers who bought the tickets from Morning
Star with their own money.
July-2015 Jurisprudence V-Gent moved for reconsideration, which motion the CA denied on February 5, 2009,
thus clearing the way for the present petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner, v. JULITA A. V-Gent argues that the CA erred in ruling that it is not the real party-in-interest. It
CARBONELL-MENDES, asserts: (1) that the issue of its legal standing to file the complaint has already
REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER become final because Morning Star did not appeal the MeTC's ruling on the issue; (2)
AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, that it is a real party-in-interest in filing the complaint; and (3) that Morning Star is
already estopped from questioning V-Gent's legal standing to file the complaint.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015julydecisions.php?id=480 2/30