ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 147920.April 3, 2002]
MAJESTIC FINANCE CO., INC. vs. BONIFACIO
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 03 APR 2002.
G.R. No. 147920 (Majestic Finance & Investment Co., Inc. vs. Amelia L. Bonifacio.)
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60662 [1] cralaw which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in Civil Case No. 62277, and the Resolution dated April 23, 2001 which denied petitioner Majestic Finance & Investment Co., Inc.'s motion for reconsideration.
On December 6, 1989, petitioner entered into a Contract of Lease with Japanese nationals Yasutsugu Uoyama and Hiroyuki Shibutani (the "lessees") for the lease of Condominium Unit No. 5-K of the Legaspi Towers located at Roxas Boulevard corner Vito Cruz St. , Manila. The term of the lease was for one (1) year.
Respondent Amelia Bonifacio, the girlfriend of T. Sakamoto who in turn was the friend of the lessees, actively participated in negotiating the terms of the contract of lease because the lessees could hardly speak English or Tagalog.
On that same day (December 6, 1989), the lessees paid petitioner One Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Pesos (P192,000.00) to cover the deposit of P48,000.00 and the advance rentals for the first six months of the lease period, from December, 1989 to June, 1990 amounting to P148,000.00.
Upon request of the lessees, respondent issued in petitioner's favor a postdated United Coconut Planters Bank (Puyat-Bautista Branch) Check No. PUB 285072 in the amount of One Hundred Forty Four Thousand Pesos (P144,000.00) to guarantee the payment of the rentals for last six months of the lease, from July to December, 1990.
On April 24, 1990, petitioner's counsel received a letter from respondent and the lessees that the latter were vacating the condominium by May 1, 1990. Respondent also requested that the postdated check which she had earlier issued in petitioner's favor be returned to her since there was no longer any need for the said check to be in petitioner's possession.
However, petitioner refused to return the check and instead deposited the same in its account with the Philippine Commercial International Bank. The check was later dishonored and returned pursuant to the stop payment order made by respondent.
On August 4, 1992, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC) a complaint for collection of sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against respondent due to the latter's refusal to make good her check.
On September 30, 1997, the RTC issued its Decision dismissing the case against respondent. Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was dismissed by the trial court in an Order dated January 22, 1998.
Not satisfied with the decision of the trial court, petitioner filed an appeal thereof with the Court of Appeals.
On February 13, 2001, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming the RTC's Decision. The appellate court ruled that respondent is an accommodation party and may be held solidarily liable for the amount of the check under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, subject to reimbursement from the lessees. However, it ruled that the respondent was not under any obligation to pay the P144,000.00 corresponding to advance rental payments for the months of July to December 1990 because the lease contract did not authorize the petitioner as lessor to automatically forfeit the advance rentals for the last six months of the lease period should the lessees terminate the lease before the end of said period.
The appellate court also dismissed petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 23, 2001.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals misapplied and misinterpreted the real import of the automatic forfeiture clause in relation to pars. "3.a" and "3.b" of the Contract of Lease, and that even without the automatic forfeiture clause, it can still recover the amount of P144,000.00 corresponding to the rent of the condominium unit for the last six months of the lease period because the lessees breached their contract with petitioner. [2] cralaw
On July 25, 2001, the Court resolved to require respondent to file her Comment to the petition [3] cralaw but respondent failed to file the same. In a Manifestation filed with the Court on December 13, 2001, respondent's counsel of record explained that he had lost contact with respondent even while the case was still pending before the trial court. He likewise prayed that the case be decided based on the records of the case.
There is no merit in the petition.
Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court found that what the Contract of Lease stipulated under paragraph 4 thereof was that if the lessees terminated the lease before the expiration of the one-year period, the lessor may automatically forfeit the deposit of P48,000.00 and the advance rental of P144,000.00 for the first six months of the lease period. The pertinent portions of the Contract of Lease state:
3.RENTAL - The parties herein agree that the monthly rental of the leased premises and the listed furnishings and equipment shall be TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P24,000.00) Philippine Currency, net of any withholding tax (BIR's Official receipts of which LESSEE shall furnished the LESSOR), payable within the first five days of every calendar month without need of demand. Failure to pay the agreed monthly rental, the LESSOR shall forfeit the two (2) months deposit as penalty.All furnitures and equipments listed in Annex "A" belong to the LESSOR. The LESSOR and the LESSEE mutually agree that the amount of ONE HUNDRED NINETY TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P192,000.00) Philippine Currency, which the LESSEE now tenders and pays to the LESSOR represents as follows:
a)�� ONE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P144,000.00) as advance rental for the first six (6) months covering the period from December 6, 1989 to June 5, 1990.
b)�� FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (P48,000.00) fixed non-interest bearing deposit applicable to Item No. 4.
4.�������� DEPOSIT - Upon signing of this contract LESSEE shall deposit in cash the amount of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (P48,000.00) Philippine Currency which shall be non-interest bearing guaranty for the faithful compliance by LESSEE of all covenants and conditions of this Contract and to answer for any unpaid bills for association dues and special assessments, water, gas, electricity, telephone and other utilities and damages suffered by LESSOR, and other momentary liabilities or obligations of LESSEE under this Contract for the leased premises, said deposit can't be applied by LESSEE to any unpaid rent and shall be kept intact throughout the life of this Contract. It shall be returned to LESSEE ninety days after LESSEE shall have completely and satisfactorily vacated and delivered the leased premises to LESSOR in the same condition the unit is first delivered to the LESSEE: less whatever amount the LESSEE may owe LESSOR at the time of said termination or expiration. Provided, that if LESSEE shall terminate this lease contract before the expiration thereof, then said deposit and advanced rental paid shall be automatically forfeited in favor of LESSOR since the parties herein agree that time is of the essence and the period for payment of rent, as well as the period of this contract, as fixed for the benefit of LESSOR, PROVIDED, further that the LESSEE liability for any breach of this Contract or any obligation to the amount of said deposit. (Emphasis supplied.) [4] cralaw
There is nothing in the said contract which allows the petitioner as lessor to automatically forfeit the advance rental for the last six months of the lease period from July to December, 1990. Since the amount covered by respondent's postdated check pertained to the rentals for the last six months of the lease period, the appellate court was correct in holding that she was under no obligation as accommodation party of the lessees to make good her check.
Considering the foregoing, no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in affirming the decision of the trial court dismissing the complaint for collection filed by petitioner against respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed Decision dated February 13, 2001 and the Resolution dated April 23, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 60662 are hereby AFFIRMED.PUNO, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Majestic Finance & Investment Co., Inc, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. Amelia L. Bonifacio, Defendant-Appellee.
[2] cralaw Petition, Rollo, pp. 17-35.
[3] cralaw Resolution dated July 25, 2001, Id., at 72.
[4] cralaw Decision of the Court of Appeals, Id., at 46-47.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
