Title
Arcinue vs. Baun
Case
G.R. No. 211149
Decision Date
Nov 28, 2019
Franchisee transferred rights without approval, causing financial harm; court upheld liability for damages, affirming bad faith and survival of action post-death.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211149)

Agreement for Franchise Operations

On October 1, 1990, ACLC granted Arcinue a ten-year franchise to operate a computer training school in Dagupan City under strict compliance with the Agreement for Franchise Operations. Section 21 allowed transfer of franchise rights only upon prior approval by ACLC and limited the transferee’s rights to the unexpired term.

Unauthorized Transfer and Initial Response

By 1993 Arcinue had not commenced operation and sold the franchise to Baun for ₱85,000 without ACLC’s approval. Baun began site preparations; ACLC’s inspection found the proposed facility inadequate and discovered Baun’s conflicting directorship in another school.

ACLC’s Demand and Franchise Termination

ACLC’s November 19, 1994 letter directed Arcinue to submit transfer documents by January 1995 or face termination. Arcinue ignored the demand; a handwritten note dated November 20, 1995 mentioned prospective buyers but no formal transfer. ACLC terminated the franchise in 1997 for non-operation and unauthorized assignment.

Trial Court Proceedings and RTC Decision

On September 11, 1997, Baun sued Arcinue and ACLC for specific performance and damages. Trial concluded on April 30, 2002; Baun died June 21, 2009 and was substituted by her siblings. On October 8, 2010, the Regional Trial Court found that:

  • The franchise transfer lacked ACLC approval; Baun had no enforceable rights against ACLC.
  • Arcinue acted in bad faith by failing to operate and by selling the franchise without consent, causing ACLC and Baun financial loss.
    Damages ordered against Arcinue:
  1. Actual damages of ₱85,000 with 6% interest from 1993;
  2. ₱50,000 exemplary damages;
  3. ₱50,000 moral damages.
    Damages ordered to ACLC: temperate, exemplary, and moral damages totaling ₱175,000.

Court of Appeals Decision

By decision dated July 17, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s findings. It held that:

  • Arcinue knowingly violated the franchise agreement; ACLC never approved Baun as transferee.
  • Baun’s action for “recovery of damages for an injury to person or property” survived her death under Rule 87, Section 1.
    Reconsideration was denied on January 28, 2014.

Issue on Review

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Arcinue’s liability for damages.

Supreme Court Ruling

The petition was denied. The Supreme Court held that:

  1. Under Rule 45, factual findings on Arcinue’s bad faith and liability for damages cannot be revisited.
  2. Actions for damages caused by tortious conduct survive a party’s death under Rule 87, Section 1.
  3. Arcinue’s breach violated Civil Code Articles 19–21, justifying the lower courts’ damage awards.

Modification of Interest Rates

Pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas guidelines and Lara’s Gift Shop v. Midtown, the C

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.