This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Such contention is partially correct. It is correct in the sense that respondents cannot utilize these grounds in the determination of whether the termination of the contract of lease was validly made for the simple reason that same were not mentioned in the termination letter. However, as to petitioner's liability for these violations, i.e., nonpayment of rentals and deficiency rentals, and payment of electric and water consumption, respondents have not relinquished their claim thereon. In fact, respondents filed a counterclaim to collect the amounts due them. A counterclaim partakes of the nature of a complaint and/or a cause of action against the plaintiff in a case.[15] The RTC ordered petitioner to pay rentals and back rentals, as well as the amount equivalent to her consumption of power and water coming from her unauthorized and illegal tap in BU's power and water lines. The Court of Appeals affirmed said award and we have no reason to deviate therefrom. | |||||