FACTS:

Booklight, Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari against Rudy O. Tiu challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA). The petitioner and respondent had a lease agreement for a space in the respondent's building for the petitioner's bookstore business. Although the lease expired on September 1, 2001, the petitioner continued to occupy the premises until its operations ceased on February 28, 2003. The respondent then filed a complaint for unpaid rentals from December 2001, along with damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and attachment against the petitioner. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the respondent's application for a writ of attachment, which included attaching the petitioner's personal properties in the bookstore and garnishing its funds in a bank. The petitioner filed an answer with compulsory counterclaim, asserting that the respondent did not make a prior demand and that it had fully paid rentals until July 2002, among other claims. However, the RTC declared the petitioner non-suited due to its failure to file a pre-trial brief and appear during the scheduled pre-trial. The petitioner's motion to lift the order of non-suit was denied. The respondent presented his evidence ex parte, and the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. The petitioner appealed the decision to the CA, which affirmed the RTC's decision with some modifications. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which was denied. The petitioner now seeks the deletion of certain amounts from the adjudged unpaid rentals and the release of proceeds from the auction sale of its attached goods and garnished funds, questioning the CA's decision on matters raised on appeal but not addressed therein.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the CA neglected to rule on petitioner's claim for refund of advanced rental and deposit.

2. Whether the electric bills should be deleted from the judgment since petitioner ceased operations before the month covered by the bills.

3. Whether petitioner is entitled to the proceeds of the auction sale of its attached goods and garnished funds.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court denied the petition, stating that the issues raised are purely factual in nature. The Court emphasized that the determination of factual issues is generally beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari. The Court held that the CA's decision, as affirmed by the RTC, is supported by evidence and is in accordance with the law.

PRINCIPLES:

• Determination of factual issues is generally beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari.