Case Summary (G.R. No. 158676)
Applicable Law
The decision is based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly Articles 1207 and 1311, which pertain to obligations, contracts, and solidary liability.
Factual Background
Julian Cruz, the lessor, leased a commercial property to Family Savings Bank (FSB) in 1976. After BPI acquired FSB, a new lease agreement was executed that included a clause allowing subleasing with the lessor's written consent. Despite not obtaining Cruz's written approval, BPI-FSB subleased the premises to Benjamin Villa. Villa ultimately decided to sell his business to Zenaida Domingo, prompting negotiations leading to a payment of P650,000. However, Cruz padlocked the premises, preventing the Domingos from taking possession. The Domingos subsequently filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking the return of their payment.
Procedural History
The RTC ruled in favor of the Domingos, finding both BPI-FSB and Villa solidarily liable, ordering them to pay actual and moral damages, attorney's fees, and subsequently allowing Cruz to reimburse them. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), and BPI-FSB sought relief from the Supreme Court on the grounds of improper liability.
Arguments of the Parties
BPI-FSB argued that it should not be held solidarily liable as it was not privy to the negotiation between Villa and the Domingos and did not receive any portions of the P650,000. Villa similarly contended that he should not be liable since he was not a party to the agreement between BPI-FSB and the Domingos. Both parties focused on the lack of direct involvement and knowledge of agreements as a basis for denying liability.
Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court held that BPI-FSB and Villa could not evade liability by denying privity because they both represented assurances to the Domingos regarding possession of the premises. Notably, the various agreements involved—original lease, sublease, and the sale of goodwill—were interconnected, warranting a holistic view of the obligations. The Court affirmed the lower courts’ findings that both BPI-FSB and Villa had joint responsibilities for the damages suffered by the Domingos.
Ruling on Moral and Exemplary Damages
The Court concluded that while both BPI-FSB and Villa were responsible for breac
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 158676)
Case Overview
- The case revolves around a petition for review filed by BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. (petitioner) challenging the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The CA had affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which found BPI-FSB and Benjamin Villa (deceased) solidarily liable to spouses Zenaida Domingo and Abundio S. Domingo for damages and attorney's fees.
- The case centers on issues related to lease agreements, sublease contracts, and the obligations of the parties involved.
Factual Background
- Respondent Julian Cruz owned a commercial property that he leased to Family Savings Bank (FSB) in April 1976.
- After BPI acquired FSB in April 1989, a new lease agreement was formed between BPI-FSB and Cruz.
- Both lease agreements allowed for subleasing but required written consent from the lessor for any assignment or transfer of rights.
- BPI-FSB subleased the premises to Benjamin Villa in February 1989 without securing Cruz's written consent, although Cruz was aware of the arrangement and did not object.
- Villa operated a restaurant but later decided to close it and negotiated with the Domingos to sell his rights to the premises, acknowledging he needed to rescind his sublease with BPI-FSB first.
- Payments were made by the Domingos to Villa, but upon attempting to take possession, they found the premises padlocked by Cruz.
Procedural History
- The Domingos f