Facts:
This case involves a dispute between New World Developers and Management, Inc. (New World), the owner of a commercial building, and AMA Computer Learning Center, Inc. (AMA), a tenant of the said building. In 1998, the parties entered into an eight-year lease agreement for the property located in Sampaloc, Manila. The agreement specified a monthly rental amount with a 15% annual escalation rate and conditions for pretermination, including a six-month notice requirement and liquidated damages equivalent to six months of rent.
AMA consistently paid the rent for the first three years. However, citing financial difficulties due to decreased enrollment, it requested a deferment of the annual escalation rate and subsequently a reduction in rent and escalation rate for the remaining lease term, to which New World agreed. But in July 2004, AMA vacated the premises without the agreed six-month notice, citing business losses, and demanded a refund of its advance rental and security deposit. In response, New World issued a Statement of Account for unpaid rentals, interest, liquidated damages, and damages to the property, less AMA’s advance payment and security deposit. The balance demanded was not settled amicably, prompting New World to file a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City.
The RTC ruled in favor of New World, ordering AMA to pay unpaid rentals, penalty interest, liquidated damages per the lease agreement, damages to the leased premises, attorney’s fees, and legal costs. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which modified the RTC ruling by lowering the liquidated damages and removing the penalty on unpaid rentals and other awards. Subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied, leading to further appeals to the Supreme Court by both parties.
Issues:
1. Whether AMA is liable to pay liquidated damages equivalent to six months’ worth of rent for preterminating the lease.
2. Whether AMA remained liable for rental arrears despite the initial application of advance rental and security deposit.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that AMA was liable for liquidated damages equivalent to six months’ rent due to its pretermination of the lease agreement without due notice, as stipulated in the contract. It also found AMA’s actions in leaving the premises and demanding a refund demonstrated bad faith. Moreover, the Court clarified that AMA’s liability for rental arrears was indeed settled by the application of the advance rental and security deposit but still found AMA liable for a significant amount towards liquidated damages after these deductions. The Court applied legal interest of 6% per annum on the final amount due from the date of extrajudicial demand until full payment to calculate the final amount owed by AMA.
Doctrine:
The ruling reiterated the principles that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith, as stated in Articles 1159 and 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Furthermore, it was emphasized that liquidated damages stipulated in contracts are enforceable unless shown to be iniquitous or unconscionable, referencing Article 2227 of the Civil Code.
Class Notes:
1. Contractual obligations must be fulfilled in good faith (Art. 1159, Civil Code).
2. Contracting parties can establish terms provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy (Art. 1306, Civil Code).
3. Liquidated damages are enforceable unless proven iniquitous or unconscionable (Art. 2227, Civil Code).
4. The principle of equity does not override express legal provisions.
Historical Background:
This case underlines the importance of the sanctity of contracts and the enforcement of agreed terms in lease agreements. Furthermore, it demonstrates the judicial processes in the Philippines regarding the resolution of contractual disputes and the modification of court decisions through appellate review.
Leave a Reply