Gochan v.

Gochan
G.R. No. 146089 | 13 December 2001
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

FACTS:
 In 1996, Respondents offered to sell shares of stock 1 to the individual Petitioners for an
in consideration of Php200 million. Petitioners accepted and paid the said amount to
respondents. Accordingly, Respondents issued to Petitioners the necessary “Receipts.”
In addition, Respondents executed their respective “Release, Waiver and Quitclaim,”
wherein they undertook that they would not initiate any suit, action or complaint
against Petitioners for whatever reason or purpose.
 In turn, Respondents, through Crispo Gochan, Jr. (Crispo), required individual
Petitioners to execute a “promissory note,” undertaking not to divulge the actual
consideration they paid for the shares of stock. For this purpose, Crispo drafted a
document entitled “promissory note” in his own handwriting and had the same signed
by Petitioners. Unbeknown to Petitioners, Crispo inserted in the promissory note a
phrase that says, “Said amount is in partial consideration of the sale.”
 In 1998, Respondents filed a complaint against Petitioners for specific performance and
damages with the RTC of Cebu, Branch 11. Respondents alleged that Petitioners offered
to buy their shares of stock, and they executed a Provisional Memorandum of
Agreement, wherein the consideration for the sale consisted of Php200 million plus
several properties.2
 Accordingly, Respondents claimed that they are entitled to the conveyance of the
properties, in addition to the Php200 million that they received from Petitioners.
Further, respondents prayed for the award of damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation
expenses.
 Petitioners filed their answer, raising as an affirmative defense, among others, the lack
of jurisdiction by the trial court for non-payment of the correct docket fees.
 Petitioners then filed with the trial court a motion for a preliminary hearing on their
affirmative defenses. The trial court denied the motion, ruling, inter alia, that the matter
of payment of docketing and filing fees was not a fatal issue in this case because the
record showed that the Respondents had paid at least Php165,000 plus in the form of
filing and docketing fees.
 Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied.
 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, however, the CA
dismissed the petition on the ground that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of
discretion, tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to hear
the affirmative defenses.
 Again, Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was likewise denied.
 As a result, Petitioners filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court assailing the
CA decision.

ISSUE:
