4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Pesos (P10,000.00) as attorney's fees plus cost of suit. SO ORDERED.[11] RTC ruling In a Decision[12] dated August 16, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 13, reversed the ruling of the MTCC. The RTC held that, according to Paragraph 19 of the lease agreements, the security deposit is for the faithful performance by the lessee of its obligations under the lease agreement.[13] Respondent had the right to withhold the deposit until his claim for damages to the units which were not caused by ordinary wear and tear have been reimbursed.[14] The pictures showing the damage to the leased premises presented by the respondent during the hearing showed that when petitioner vacated the premises, the same were in need of major repairs.[15] Furthermore, the RTC found that the major repairs were all covered by receipts, which convinced the court that respondent spent P79,534.00 for the repairs for the two apartment units, thus: WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is hereby reversed and set aside. The court finds that the claim of plaintiff for refund of the amount of P90,000.00 which it paid defendant as security deposit for the two apartment units which plaintiff leased, had already been offset by amount of P79,534.00 which defendant spent for the repairs of the leased premises and the nominal damage in the amount of P11,464.00 which the court hereby awards to defendant. Plaintiff and defendant have therefore no more claims against each other. SO ORDERED.[16] CA ruling Upon Petition for Review under Rule 42 to the CA, petitioner ascribed to the RTC grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that the claim for the refund of the security deposit has already been offset by the amount respondent spent for the repairs, and when the RTC ruled that defendant is entitled to nominal damages. However, the CA in its Decision[17] dated February 25, 2011, resolved the case completely different from the raised errors by petitioner. The CA held that the pivotal issue was whether the MTCC has jurisdiction over the complaint.[18] The CA ruled that the allegations in petitioner's complaint make out a case for breach of contract and, therefore, an action for specific performance is an available remedy.[19] As such, the same is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. Therefore, the MTCC has no jurisdiction over the case. The action for sum of money representing the security deposit is merely incidental to the main action for specific performance.[20] Thus, the CA dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, to wit: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66024 3/8