Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > April 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-6860. April 18, 1956.] PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. LEOPOLDO PRIETO, NATIONAL AIRPORTS CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.:


[G.R. No. L-6860.  April 18, 1956.]





On March 3, 1949, the National Airports Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the lessor) and Leopoldo Prieto entered into a concession contract (Exhibit A), whereby the latter was granted the exclusive right to establish, operate, conduct and maintain a Snack Bar within the International Airport, in the municipality of Parañaque, province of Rizal, for a period of two (2) years from March 15, 1949, in consideration of a monthly rental of P300, plus a royalty of three per centum (3%) of the gross sales and the telephone, electrical and water charges. Alleging that Prieto was delinquent in the payment of said rentals, royalties and charges, on October 27, 1949, the lessor instituted this action for the recovery of P2,777.61, with interest and costs. In his answer to the complaint, Prieto alleged a breach of contract on the part of the lessor, upon the ground that it had allowed the establishment, in a building of the Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the PAL) — to which the International Airport was leased, for the operation of its airline business — of a store engaged in the same business which was the exclusive right of Prieto to do, under his aforementioned concession, and that he, accordingly, had suffered damages, which he prayed, by way of counterclaim, that the lessor be sentenced to indemnify. Thereafter, the lessor filed against the PAL a third-party complaint, stating that said store in the PAL premises had been opened and maintained by the PAL without the knowledge and consent of the lessor and in violation of the rules and regulations, governing commercial activity within the area of said airport, which are binding to the PAL, and that, consequently, Prieto had sued the lessor for damages resulting from breach of his concession, and praying that the PAL be sentenced to pay to the lessor such amount as the latter may be required to indemnify Prieto, should he obtain a favorable judgment on his counterclaim. Answering the third-party complaint, the PAL asserted that it had authority to permit, and did permit, the operation of the store in question within its premises in the International Airport; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the lessor had consented thereto; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that, at any rate, said store had been opened and run by the PAL Cooperative Association, a corporation distinct and different from the PAL, which is not responsible for the acts of said association. In due course, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision the dispositive part of which reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“EN VISTA de todo lo expuesto, el Juzgado dicta sentencia:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“(a)  sobreseyendo la demanda contra el demandado;

“(b)  condenando a la demandante National Airports Corporation a pagar al demandado Leopoldo Prieto la cantidad de P7,823.16, en concepto de daños y perjuicios, y les costas; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryy

“(c)  condenando a la tercera parte demandada Philippine Airlines, Inc. a pagar a la demandante National Airports Corporation la referida cantidad de P7,823.16, con las costas.”

On appeal taken by the PAL, this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The PAL now seeks a review, by certiorari, of the decision of the latter court.

It is not disputed that the lessor is guilty of breach of its contract with Prieto; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat Prieto had, by reason of the operation of the cooperative store, sustained damages which, after deducting the balance of the rentals and the telephone, electric and water charges due from him, amount to the sum stated in the decisions of the court of first instance and the Court of Appeals; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that the lessor should indemnify said amount. The only issue for determination in this appeal is whether the lessor is entitled to reimbursement from the PAL. The latter maintains the negative, upon two (2) grounds, namely:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) that the lessor had consented to the establishment and operation of said cooperative store; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand (2) that the same was organized and maintained by, and belongs to, the PAL Cooperative Association, not the PAL, which is separate and independent from said association. We find no merit in this pretense.

To begin with, the Court of Appeals said in its decision:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“The allegations that the store of the PAL Cooperative was opened only after proper authority therefor had been obtained is untenable. On this point Zosa testified:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

‘A.  I went to see Col. Villamor, who was then the general manager of the National Airports Corporation, and talked to him and told him about the intention of these boys in having or forming a cooperative association, and he said it was a very good idea and to go ahead with it, and that they are supposed to follow the paper work, and I wrote him a letter also about requesting permission to construct in our compound a building for the use of these boys, which was promised by the management and that they were going to avail themselves of the space for their use.’ (t. s. n. p. 137)

The letter which he sent to the National Airports for the purpose was never answered.”

In other words, said appellate court held that the lessor’s alleged consent to the creation and operation of the cooperative store had not been proved. Apart from being conclusive upon us, this finding appears to be fully supported by the record. Indeed, it is admitted that, as early as February 28, 1949, the lessor had written to the PAL a letter stating that the cooperative store should be closed because it violated existing rules and regulations. Instead of being surprised at the attitude of the lessor as the PAL would have logically reacted, had it secured the lessor’s consent to the opening of the cooperative store and of reminding the lessor of its aforementioned consent, had it really been given, and of the inconsistency thereof with its aforesaid attitude, the PAL mildly replied with the statement that said store was catering solely to PAL personnel. Again, on May 10, 1949, Prieto wrote to the lessor protesting against the operation of said cooperative store as a violation of his concession contract. On May 23, 1949, the lessor answered with the following letter:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

  “May 23, 1949

Atty. Alfredo Casimiro

No. 119-W, Bulacan Street

Tondo, Manila

DEAR SIR:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

This is in reply to yours of May 10. We are fully aware and in full sympathy with your petition. We have therefore written a communication of the Philippine Air Lines, Inc., giving them fifteen (15) days after the receipt of our letter to close the PAL Cooperative Store. Failure on their part to comply, shall cause us to take the proper legal action against them.

Rest assured that we are doing all we can for the satisfaction of our concessionaires.

  Respectfully yours,


  General Manager

On the same date, the lessor sent to the PAL a communication, the pertinent part of which we quote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

x x x                    x x x                    x x x

“While it may be true that the PAL Cooperative Store caters only to PAL personnel, yet it is equally true that it is engaged in the selling of goods and commodities which have been exclusively granted to the Airline Snack Bar in the PAL area. The Airline Snack Bar is paying 3 per cent royalties on its gross sales, monthly rentals and water charges to the National Airports Corporation, which the PAL Cooperative Store is not. The Airline Snack Bar has a contract with the National Airports Corporation, while the PAL Cooperative Store has none. The operation of your cooperative store causes us to be placed in some embarrassment, as you may gather from the enclosed copy of the letter addressed to us by the lawyer of Mr. Leopoldo Prieto, concessionaire for the operation of the Airline Snack Bar. It may be true that the operation of your cooperative store is for the benefit and welfare of your employees, but, unfortunately, you failed to secure the necessary permission from this Corporation so that you could legally commence and continue operating the same. Having failed to secure such necessary permission constitutes an infringement of our regulations.

cralaw Failure on your part to close the PAL Cooperative Store within fifteen (15) days after receipt of this letter shall cause us to take the proper legal action against you regarding this matter.” (Italics supplied.)

x x x                    x x x                    x x x

It should be noted that the PAL is specifically charged, in this letter, with failure to secure, from the lessor, the necessary permission for the operation of the cooperative store. Had such permission been actually given, said letter would have provoked the indignation and a sharp protest of the PAL. Yet, it did not do so. Instead, the PAL replied on June 14, 1949, advising the lessor that said letter had been referred to the PAL Cooperative Store, and expressing the hope that the lessor would refrain from taking any further action until after it had heard from a representative of said store. In short, the behavior of the lessor and the PAL shows beyond doubt that the former had not authorized the establishment and operation of said cooperative store.

With respect to the personality of the PAL Cooperative Association, which is said to be independent of that of the PAL, suffice it to say that the PAL is not sued, and has not been sentenced, for the acts of said association. Plaintiff’s action and the decisions against the PAL are based upon its own acts, for which the PAL cannot disclaim responsibility, namely:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary for having expressly authorized — and even abetted, by giving the space and the facilities necessary therefor — the organization and operation, within its premises in the International Airport, of said cooperative store, in violation of the rules and regulations governing the business activities within the area of said airport, which rules and regulations are binding on the PAL.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from, is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Philippine Air Lines, Inc. SO ORDERED.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

April-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-7448. April 11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FLAVIANA TALAO PEREZ, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8892. April 11, 1956.] ALFREDO HALILI and TOMAS P. JACOB for themselves and in behalf and for the benefit of forty-one other persons all owning their respective houses inside the Palomar Compound, Tonco, Manila, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ARSENIO H. LACSON, as Mayor of the City of Manila and ALEJO AQUINO, as City Engineer, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9121. April 11, 1956.] LEONISA B. BACALTOS, assisted by her husband RICARDO P. BACALTOS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. FRANCISCO ESTEBAN, JR., FRANCISCO ESTEBAN, SR. and PAZ PAGSUMBUNGAN, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9267. April 11, 1956.] ALFREDO TOLENTINO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. ANTONIO O. ALZATE, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7801. April 13, 1956.] Testate Estate of Dņa. Perpetua A. Vda. de Soriano. DOLORES ALBORNOZ, Petitioner. ELIAS RACELA, claimant-Appellant, vs. DOLORES ALBORNOZ and JOSE ALBORNOZ, co- special administrators Oppositors-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8257. April 13, 1956.] JOSE R. CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. REYNALDO PAHATI, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.


  • [G.R. No. L-8667. April 13, 1956.] URBANO TABORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HONORABLE ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, in his capacity as Secretary of Economic Coordination, and NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION (NARIC), Defendants. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION (NARIC), Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8724. April 13, 1956.] PABLO ESPAŅOLA, Petitioner, vs. VICENTE T. SINGSON, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9034. April 13, 1956.] JOSE A. SUELTO, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CECILIA MUŅOZ-PALMA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental and RICARDO TEVES, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9893. April 13, 1956.] MAURA LUMANLAN, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-5203. April 18, 1956.] STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee.


  • [G.R. No. L-7361. April 20, 1956.] PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. COMPAŅIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8026. April 20, 1956.] ISABEL PADILLA Y ANGELES, represented by her legal guardian, NATIVIDAD ANGELES VDA. DE PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LUCIANO C. DIZON, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8369. April 20, 1956.] THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8546. April 20, 1956.] GENOVEVA S. VILLALON and AUGUSTO VILLALON, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BONIFACIO YSIP and WILLIAM GOLANGCO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8379. April 24, 1956.] VICTORINO MANALO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION AND CAPITAL INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-6962. April 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KANTONG ALI, accused, LUZON SURETY CO., INC., bondsman-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7457. April 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BUENCONSEJO DACIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8496. April 25, 1956.] LIM SI, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ISABELO P. LIM, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-6848. April 27, 1956.] MANILA LIGHTER TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, THE CITY TREASURER, and THE CITY MAYOR, all of the CITY OF CAVITE, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7175. April 27, 1956.] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. HON. MODESTO CASTILLO, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7643. April 27, 1956.] PEDRO O. CASIMIRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LEON ROQUE and ERNESTO GONZALES, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7717. April 27, 1956.] G. B., INC., ETC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE CONRADO V. SANCHEZ, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8142. April 27, 1956.] MACHINERY & ENGINEERING SUPPLIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MAXIMINO A. QUINTANO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8772. April 27, 1956.] RAMCAR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [Adm. Case. No. 90. April 28, 1956.] MARIA L. ALDANA, complainant, vs. ATTORNEY FRANCISCO MENDOZA ABAD, Respondent.


  • [G.R. No. L-5510. April 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAFAEL ARANUA, ET AL., Defendants. RAFAEL ARANUA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6202. April 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAFAEL CABUENA, ET AL., Defendants. GREGORIO CORDIZAR and EUTIQUIO BOHOL, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7059. April 28, 1956.] LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., and BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO., Petitioners, vs. OCTAVIANO PABALAN, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8219. April 28, 1956.] BENITO TAN CHAT, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. C. N. HODGES, ET AL., Defendants; C. N. HODGES, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8277. April 28, 1956.] THOMAS BUYAYAO and BONGAYAN BUYAYAO, assisted by her husband DAPLANG, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ITOGON MINING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8536. April 28, 1956.] The Intestate Estate of Fausto Bayot, represented by CELESTE BAYOT, Judicial Administratrix, applicant-Appellee, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8654. April 28, 1956.] ANTONINO DIZON, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8694. April 28, 1956.] MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CITY OF MANILA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8702. April 28, 1956.] VICENTE BASILIO, Petitioner, vs. ZOILO DAVID, VICENTE DAVID, AMPARO DAVID, ESTELITA DAVID and LADISLAO DAVID, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8782. April 28, 1956.] MARCELINO B. FLORENTINO and LOURDES T. ZANDUETA, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9088. April 28, 1956.] ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9304. April 28, 1956.] DOROTEO DE LA CRUZ, JULIA ROBLES AND NARCISO ALIGADA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. RAFAEL L. RESURRECCION and ALMEDA, FRANCISCO & CO., Defendants-Appellants.