### Facts

This case involves Booklight, Inc. (petitioner) and Rudy O. Tiu (respondent). On February 13, 2003, Tiu filed a complaint for Collection of Sum of Money, Damages, Attorney's Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Attachment against Booklight, Inc. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City. The complaint stemmed from a lease agreement between Tiu and Booklight, Inc. for a space in Tiu's building, which was intended for the operation of a bookstore. The lease was for a duration of five years, expiring on September 1, 2001. Despite the expiration, Booklight, Inc. continued to occupy the premises until its business ceased operations on February 28, 2003. Tiu alleged that Booklight, Inc. failed to pay rent starting December 2001, prompting him to file the complaint. The RTC granted Tiu's application for a writ of attachment, leading to the attachment of Booklight, Inc.'s personal properties and the garnishment of its funds in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation.

In response, Booklight, Inc. filed an Answer with a Compulsory Counterclaim, asserting that Tiu had not made any prior demand for payment and that it had fully paid its rentals up to July 2002. On September 2, 2003, the RTC declared Booklight, Inc. non-suited due to its failure to file a pre-trial brief and to appear at the scheduled pre-trial. Booklight, Inc. subsequently filed a motion to lift the order of non-suit, which was denied by the RTC. The court then scheduled an ex parte presentation of Tiu's evidence on March 21, 2005. The RTC ultimately ruled in favor of Tiu on April 24, 2009, ordering Booklight, Inc. to pay various sums, including unpaid rentals, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and other charges. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications, deleting certain awards. Booklight, Inc. filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which was denied. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court.

### Issue

1. Did the Court of Appeals err in not addressing Booklight, Inc.'s claim for refund of the advanced rental and deposit amounting to P109,440.00?
2. Should the electric bills amounting to P18,712.98 be deleted from the judgment?
3. Is Booklight, Inc. entitled to the proceeds from the auction sale of its attached goods and garnished funds?

### Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Decision dated July 31, 2013, and the Resolution dated July 21, 2014, of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the issues raised were purely factual and beyond its jurisdiction to review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

### Ratio

The Supreme Court emphasized that the issues presented by Booklight, Inc. were factual in nature, which typically fall outside the scope of judicial review under Rule 45, as this rule is intended for questions of law. The Court noted that the determination of whether there was an advanced rental and deposit, whether this amount had been refunded, and whether the electric bills pertained only to March 2003 required an examination of evidence, which the Court is not equipped to undertake. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that Booklight, Inc. had been declared non-suited, meaning it lost its right to present evidence to support its claims. The absence of evidence to substantiate its assertions regarding the advanced rental, deposit, and electric bills was deemed fatal to its case. The Court also clarified that the satisfaction of judgment from attached properties is not mandatory, and the proper procedure for execution of judgment should be followed in the RTC. Thus, the Court found no compelling reason to overturn the findings of the RTC and CA regarding the matters of unpaid rentals and electric bills.

####