CASE TITLE: PASRICHA VS. DON LUIS DISON REALTY
G.R. No. 136409; March 14, 2008 PETITIONER: SUBHASH C. PASRICHA and JOSEPHINE
A. PASRICHA, RESPONDENT: DON LUIS DISON REALTY, INC.
DOCTRINE: An
action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to whom payment
of rentals should be made due to conflicting claims on the property (or the
right to collect). The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against
double liability but to protect him against double vexation in respect of one
liability. Notably, instead of availing of the above remedies, petitioners
opted to refrain from making payments
FACTS: Respondent Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc.
and petitioners executed two Contracts of Lease whereby the former, as lessor,
agreed to lease to the latter Units 22, 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of
the San Luis Building, located at 1006 M.Y. Orosa cor. T.M. Kalaw Streets,
Ermita, Manila. Petitioners, in turn, agreed to pay monthly rentals.
Petitioners were, likewise, required to pay for the cost of electric
consumption, water bills and the use of telephone cables. The lease of Rooms
36, 37 and 38 did not materialize leaving only Rooms 22, 24, 32, 33, 34 and 35
as subjects of the lease contracts. While the contracts were in effect,
petitioners dealt with Francis Pacheco (Pacheco), then General Manager of
private respondent. Thereafter, Pacheco was replaced by Roswinda Bautista (Ms.
Bautista). Petitioners religiously paid the monthly rentals until May 1992.
After that, however, despite repeated demands, petitioners continuously refused
to pay the stipulated rent.
Consequently, respondent was constrained to refer the matter
to its lawyer who, in turn, made a final demand on petitioners for the payment
of the accrued rentals amounting to P916,585.58. Because petitioners still
refused to comply, a complaint for ejectment was filed by private respondent
through its representative, Ms. Bautista, before the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Manila. Petitioners admitted their failure to pay the stipulated rent
for the leased premises starting July until November 1992, but claimed that
such refusal was justified because of the internal squabble in respondent
company as to the person authorized to receive payment. To further justify
their non-payment of rent, petitioners alleged that they were prevented from
using the units (rooms) subject matter of the lease contract, except Room 35.
Petitioners eventually
paid their monthly rent for December 1992 in the amount of P30,000.00, and
claimed that respondent waived its right to collect the rents for the months of
July to November 1992 since petitioners were prevented from using Rooms 22, 24,
32, 33, and 34. However, they again withheld payment of rents starting January
1993 because of respondent’s refusal to turn over Rooms 36, 37 and 38. To show
good faith and willingness to pay the rents, petitioners alleged that they
prepared the check vouchers for their monthly rentals from January 1993 to
January 1994. Petitioners further averred in their Amended Answer that the
complaint for ejectment was
prematurely filed, as the controversy was not
referred to the barangay for conciliation. For failure of the parties to reach
an amicable settlement, the pre-trial conference was terminated. the MeTC
rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for ejectment. Regional Trial
Court reversed and set aside the MeTC Decision. Aggrieved, elevated the case to
the CA which affirmed RTC’s decision.
ISSUE: Whether or
not the filing of an action for interpleader is proper
HELD: We uphold the
capacity of respondent company to institute the ejectment case. Although the
SEC suspended and eventually revoked respondent's certificate of registration
on 16 February 1995, records show that it instituted the action for ejectment
on 15 December 1993. Accordingly, when the case was commenced, its registration
was not yet revoked. Besides, as correctly held by the appellate court, the SEC
later set aside its earlier orders of suspension and revocation of respondent's
certificate, rendering the issue moot and academic. It is undisputed that
petitioners and respondents entered into 2 separate contracts of lease
involving 9 rooms. Records likewise show that respondent repeatedly demanded
that petitioners vacate the premises, but the latter refused to heed the
demand; thus, they remained in possession of the premises. What was clearly
established by the evidence was petitioners' non-payment of rentals because
ostensibly, they did not know to whom payment should be made. However, this did
not justify their failure to pay, because if such were the case, they were not
without any remedy. They should have availed of the provisions of the Civil
Code on consignation of payment and of the Rules of Court on interpleader.
CONSIGNATION shall be made by depositing the things due at the disposal of the
judicial authority, before whom the tender of payment shall be proved in a
proper case, and the announcement of the consignation on other cases. In the
instant case, consignation alone would have produced the effect of payment of
the rentals. The rationale for consignation is to avoid the performance of an
obligation becoming more onerous to the debtor by reason of causes not
imputable to him. Tender of payment must be accompanied by consignation on
order that the effect of payment may be produced. INTERPLEADER is proper
whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made
against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an
interest in whole or in part is not disputed by claimants, he may bring an
action against conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate
their several claims among themselves. Otherwise stated, an action for
interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals
should be made due to conflicting claims on the property (or the right
to collect). The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against double
liability but to protect him against double vexation in respect of one
liability. Notably, instead of availing of the above remedies, petitioners opted
to refrain from making payments.
No comments:
Post a Comment