Case Digest (G.R. No. 120554)
Facts:
So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals, Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. and Manuel C. Tiong, G.R. No. 120554, September 21, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner So Ping Bun is the grandson of the late So Pek Giok. In 1963 Tek Hua Trading Co., through its managing partner So Pek Giok, entered into four yearly lease contracts with lessor Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. (DCCSI) for warehouse premises on Soler Street, Binondo, Manila. The contracts provided that occupancy after expiry would be on a month-to-month basis. Tek Hua Trading Co. was dissolved in 1976; the original members later formed Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. (respondent corporation). After So Pek Giok’s death in 1986, petitioner occupied the warehouse for his own textile business, Trendsetter Marketing, and paid rent.
Beginning August 1989 DCCSI served notices increasing rent and enclosing new lease contracts (rent increases adjusted in January 1990 and again in December 1990). DCCSI warned that failure to sign would be deemed lack of interest and agreement to termination. Tek Hua Enterprising did not sign the offered contracts but continued occupancy on a month-to-month basis. On March 1, 1991, respondent Manuel C. Tiong (president of Tek Hua Enterprising) sent petitioner a 14-day vacate demand; petitioner refused.
Petitioner then requested that DCCSI execute formal lease contracts in favor of Trendsetter Marketing; on March 11, 1991 DCCSI executed lease contracts in Trendsetter’s favor. Tek Hua Enterprising and Tiong filed suit seeking nullification of the new leases, injunction, and damages. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 35 annulled the March 11, 1991 lease contracts between petitioner/Trendsetter and DCCSI, made a preliminary injunction permanent, dismissed the complaint insofar as Tiong was concerned, ordered petitioner to pay Tek Hua Enterprising P500,000.00 for attorneys’ fees, and taxed costs; the court left open the parties’ right to negotiate renewal under lawful terms.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the trial court was denied. On appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 38784 the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment but, on reconsideration, reduced the attorneys’ fees award from P500,000.00 to P200,000.00. ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court’s finding that So Ping Bun was guilty of tortious interference with contract?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding attorneys’ fees of P200,000.00 in favor of Tek Hua Enterprising ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)