Case Digest (A.C. No. 12876) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals, Tek Hua Trading Co., managed by So Pek Giok, leased four warehouse premises from Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. (DCCSI) in Binondo, Manila, under one‐year contracts beginning in 1963 with a month‐to‐month holdover clause. After Tek Hua Trading’s dissolution in 1976, its former members organized Tek Hua Enterprising Corp., and upon So Pek Giok’s death in 1986, his grandson, petitioner So Ping Bun, occupied the premises for his textile business, Trendsetter Marketing, paying rent to DCCSI. In 1989 and 1990, DCCSI notified the lessees of successive rent increases and enclosed new contracts, which Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. ignored but did not rescind. In March 1991, Manuel C. Tiong, president of Tek Hua Enterprising, demanded So Ping Bun vacate the warehouse within 14 days. Petitioner refused and induced DCCSI to execute new lease contracts with Trendsetter on March 11, 1991. Tek Hua Enterprising and Tiong filed suit in the Regional Trial Court of Man Case Digest (A.C. No. 12876) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Original lease and corporate succession
- In 1963, Tek Hua Trading Co., through managing partner So Pek Giok, entered into four one-year lease agreements with Dee C. Chuan & Sons Inc. (DCCSI) for warehouse premises at Nos. 930, 930-Int., 924-B and 924-C Soler Street, Binondo, Manila, with a provision that holdover occupancy would be on a month-to-month basis.
- Tek Hua Trading Co. was dissolved in 1976; original members, including Manuel C. Tiong, formed Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. So Pek Giok died in 1986, and his grandson, petitioner So Ping Bun, continued to occupy the premises for his own textile business, Trendsetter Marketing.
- Rent increase notices and lease offers
- On August 1, 1989, DCCSI notified Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. of a 25% rent increase effective September 1, 1989; upon lessees’ demand, this was reduced to 20% effective January 1, 1990; a further 30% increase was imposed on December 1, 1990. Each notice enclosed new lease contracts and warned that non-signature would be deemed lease termination.
- Private respondents failed to respond, and DCCSI did not formally rescind the existing leases.
- Demand to vacate and new leases with petitioner
- By letter dated March 1, 1991, Manuel C. Tiong, as president of Tek Hua Enterprising Corp., ordered So Ping Bun to vacate the premises within 14 days or face legal measures; So Ping Bun refused.
- On March 4, 1992, So Ping Bun requested and obtained four new lease contracts dated March 11, 1991 between DCCSI and Trendsetter Marketing, asserting continuous rent payments.
- Trial court proceedings and appellate decision
- Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. and Manuel C. Tiong sued for injunction, nullification of the 1991 leases, and damages. The Regional Trial Court annulled the March 11, 1991 leases, made permanent the injunction, awarded P500,000 attorney’s fees, dismissed claims against Tiong, and imposed costs, without prejudice to future lease negotiations.
- On appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 38784), the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision but reduced attorney’s fees from P500,000 to P200,000. Petitioner then sought certiorari relief before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court’s finding that So Ping Bun committed tortious interference with contract by inducing DCCSI to lease the warehouse to his enterprise?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding P200,000 in attorney’s fees to private respondents?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)