Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7969)
Facts:
Jai-Alai Corporation of the Philippines v. Luis Ching Kiat Biek, et al., G.R. No. L‑7969, March 30, 1960, Supreme Court En Banc, Gutierrez David, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff-appellant, Jai-Alai Corporation of the Philippines (plaintiff), sued defendants-appellees Luis Ching Kiat Biek, Ricardo Chung and the partnership Ricardo Chung, Ching Kiat Biek & Co., Ltd. (defendants) in the Court of First Instance of Manila on March 30, 1949 for P390,000 as damages for alleged breach of a lease/concession agreement covering several bars, restaurants and the Sky Room nightclub in the plaintiff's Taft Avenue stadium.
The complaint alleged that in late 1947 plaintiff invited bids to lease three bars and restaurants and that on January 6, 1948 defendants submitted a bid extending also to the Sky Room; that parties agreed defendants would operate the concessions for five years for rentals equivalent to 10% of gross daily sales with a guaranteed minimum annual rental of P78,000 (and 20% of gross in the Sky Room after 6 p.m.); and that defendants agreed to invest specified minimum sums for finishing and equipment (together roughly P245,000). Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached and abandoned the contract (closing the Sky Room January 15, 1949), that plaintiff repossessed the concessions to mitigate damages, and sought the minimum five‑year rentals as damages.
In their April 26, 1949 answer defendants denied the allegations, averred that plaintiff accepted their bid and that, with plaintiff's knowledge and consent, they undertook rehabilitation and outfitting of the concessions, actually spending roughly P461,566.22; that plaintiff agreed to assume any excess over the agreed P245,000 by arrangement of a loan to be amortized against rentals; that plaintiff repeatedly interfered with defendants' management and failed to provide agreed services (elevator, air‑conditioning, check room), causing operating difficulties and a temporary Sky Room suspension caused by employee strikes; that on January 24, 1949 plaintiff took over and relet the concessions for its own account, thereby terminating the contract; and they counterclaimed for reimbursement of investment, damages and loss of profits.
Plaintiff answered and amended to assert that under the contract all equipment and improvements installed by defendants would become plaintiff's property at the end of the term and, by defendants' breach, plaintiff suffered damages representing the value of those improvements. After a trial lasting over four years, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on December 22, 1953 in favor of defendants, ordering plaintiff to pay P338,704.59 (plus legal interest from January 24, 1949), to pay certain accounts (including P53,048.50 to Gonzalo Puyat & Sons) and costs. The trial court found that the accepted instrument was the defendants' bid (exh. J), not an unsigned draft (exh. K); that plaintiff had reserved a right to cancel but, when it exercised that right, it wa...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in holding that exhibit J (the bid) — and not exhibit K (a draft contract) — constituted the contract between the parties?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motions for continuance and in restricting cross‑examination/rebuttal so as to warrant reversal?
- Was the trial court correct in finding that plaintiff, having taken over and terminated the concession, was liable to refund the inventoried cost of improvements l...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)