MARIMPERIO COMPANIA NAVIERA, S.A, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND UNION IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION AND PHILIN TRADERS CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65
of the Rules of Court seeking the annulment and setting aside of the decision
of the Court of Appeals* and promulgated on September 2,
1974 in CA-G.R. No. 48521-R entitled “Union Import and Export Corporation,
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Marimperio
Compania Naviera, S.A.,
Defendant-Appellant”, ordering petitioner to pay respondent the total sum
of US $265,482.72 plus attorney’s fees of US $100,000.00 and (b) the resolution
of the said Court of Appeals in the same case, dated February 17, 1975 fixing
the amount of attorney’s fees to P100,000.00 instead of $100,000.00 as
erroneously stated in the decision but denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration and/or new trial.

The dispositive portion of the decision
sought to be annulled (Rollo, p. 215) reads as
follows:

For all the foregoing, and in accordance therewith, let judgment be
entered (a) affirming the decision appealed from insofar as it directs the
defendant-appellant:  (1) to pay
plaintiffs the sum of US$22,500.00 representing the remittance of plaintiffs to
said defendant for the first 15-day hire of the vessel ‘SS PAXOI’, including
overtime and an overpayment of US$254.00; (2) to pay plaintiffs the sum of US
$16,000.00, corresponding to the remittance of plaintiffs to defendant for the
second 15-day hire of the aforesaid vessel; (3) to pay plaintiffs the sum of
US$6,982.72, representing the cost of bunker oil, survey and watering of the
said vessel; (4) to pay plaintiffs the sum of US$100,000.00 as and for attorney’s
fees; and, (b) reversing the portion granting commission to the intervenor-appellee and hereby dismissing the
complaint-in-intervention.  The order of
the court a quo denying the plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Reconsideration, is likewise, afirmed, without any
special pronouncement as to costs.”

The facts of the case as gathered from the amended decision of
the lower court (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 352), are as follows:

In 1964 Philin Traders Corporation and
Union Import and Export Corporation entered into a joint business venture for
the purchase of copra from Indonesia
for sale in Europe. 
James Liu, President and General Manager of the Union
took charge of the European market and the chartering of a vessel to take the
copra to Europe. 
Peter Yap of Philin on the other hand, found
one P.T. Karkam in Dumai, Sumatra
who had around 4,000 tons of copra for sale. 
Exequiel Toeg of Interocean was commissioned to look for a vessel and he
found the vessel “SS Paxoi” of Marimperio available. 
Philin and Union
authorized Toeg to negotiate for its charter but with
instructions to keep confidential the fact that they are the real charterers.

Consequently on March 21, 1965, in London England, a
“Uniform Time Charter” for the hire of vessel “Paxoi” was entered into by the owner, Marimperio Compania Naviera, S.A. through its agents N. & J. Vlassopulos, Ltd. and Matthews Wrightson,
Burbridge, Ltd. to be referred to simply as Matthews,
representing Interocean Shipping Corporation, which
was made to appear as charterer, although it merely
acted in behalf of the real charterers, private
respondents herein.

The pertinent provisions or clauses of the Charter Party read:

‘1. The Owners let, and the Charterers
hire the Vessel for a period of 1 (one) trip via safe port or ports Hong Kong,
Philippine Islands and/or INDONESIA from the time the Vessel is delivered and
placed at the disposal of the Charterers on sailing
HSINKANG x x x.

4.  The Charterers are
to provide and pay for oil-fuel, water for boilers, port charges, pilotages x x x.

6.  The Charterers to
pay as hire s.21 (Twenty-one Shillings per deadweights ton per 30 days or pro
rata commencing in accordance with Clause 1 until her redelivery to the owners.

“Payment of hire to be made in cash as per Clause 40 without
discount, every 15 days in advance.

In default of payment of the Owners to have the right of
withdrawing the vessel from the services of the Charterers,
without noting any protest and without interference by any court or any
formality whatsoever and without prejudice the Owners may otherwise have on the
Charterers under the Charter.

7.    The Vessel to be redelivered on the
expiration of the Charter in the same good order as when delivered to the Charterers (fair wear and tear expected) in the Charterer’s option in ANTWERP
HAMBURG RANGE.

20.  The Charterers to
have the option of subletting the Vessel, giving due notice to the Owners, but
the original Charterers always to remain responsible
to the Owners for due performance of the Charter.

29.  Export and/or import permits for Charterers‘ cargo to the Charterers‘
risk and expense.  Charterers
to obtain and be responsible for all the necessary permits to enter and/or
trade in and out of all ports during the currency of the Charter at their risk
and expense.  x x
x

33.  Charterers to pay as
overtime, bonus and premiums to Master, Officers and crew, the sum of £200 (Two
Hundred Pounds) per month to be paid together with hire.

37.  Bunkers on delivery as on board.  Bunkers on redelivery maximum 110 tons.  Prices of bunkers at 107′ per long ton at
both ends.

38.  Upon sailing from each loading port, Master to
cable SEASHIPS MANILA advising the quantity loaded and the time of completion

40.  The hire shall be payable in external sterling
or at Charterers‘ option in U.S. dollars in London:  – Williams Deacon’s Vlassopulos
Ltd., Account No. 861769.”

In view of the aforesaid Charter, on March 30, 1965 plaintiff Charterer
cabled a firm offer to P.T. Karkam to buy the 4,000
tons of copra for U.S. $180.00 per ton, the same to be loaded either in April
or May, 1965.  The offer was accepted and
plaintiffs opened two irrevocable letters of Credit in favor of P.T. Karkam.

On March 29, 1965,
the Charterer was notified by letter by Vlassopulos through Matthews that the vessel
“PAXOI” had sailed from Hsinkang at
noontime on March 27, 1965
and that it had left on hire at that time and date under the Uniform
Time-Charter.

The Charterer was however twice in
default in its payments which were supposed to have been done in advance.  The first 15-day hire comprising the period
from March 27 to April 11, 1965
was paid despite follow-ups only on April
6, 1965 and the second 15-day hire for the period from April 12 to April 27, 1965 was paid also despite
follow-ups only on April 26, 1965.  On April
14, 1965 upon representation of Toeg, the
Esso Standard Oil (Hongkong)
Company supplied the vessel with 400 tons of bunker oil at a cost of US
$6,982.73.

Although the late payments for the charter of the vessel were
received and acknowledged by Vlassopulos without
comment or protest, said agent notified Matthews, by telex on April 23, 1965
that the shipowners in accordance with Clause 6 of
the Charter Party were withdrawing the vessel from Charterer’s
service and holding said Charterer responsible for
unpaid hirings and all legal claims.

On April 29, 1965,
the shipowners entered into another charter agreement
with another Charterer, the Nederlansche
Stoomvart of Amsterdam,
the delivery date of which was around May
3, 1965 for a trip via Indonesia
to Antwerp/Hamburg at an increased charter cost.

Meanwhile, the original Charterer again
remitted on April 30, 1965,
the amount corresponding to the 3rd 15-day hire of the vessel PAXOI, but this
time the remittance was refused.

On May 3, 1965, respondents Union Import and Export Corporation
and Philin Traders Corporation filed a complaint with
the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII, against the Unknown Owners
of the Vessel “SS Paxoi“, for specific
performance with prayer for preliminary attachment, alleging, among other
things, that the defendants (unknown owners) through their duly authorized
agent in London, the N & J Vlassopulos, Ltd.,
ship brokers, entered into a contract of Uniform Time-Charter with the Interocean Shipping Company of Manila through the latter’s
duly authorized broker, the Overseas Steamship Co., Inc., for the Charter of
the vessel “SS PAXOI” under the terms and conditions appearing
therein x x x; that,
immediately thereafter, the Interocean Shipping
Company sublet the said vessel to the plaintiff Union Import & Export
Corporation which in turn sublet the same to the other plaintiff, the Philin Traders Corporation (Amended Record on Appeal, p.
17).  Respondents as plaintiffs in the
complaint obtained a writ of preliminary attachment of vessel “PAXOI”
which was anchored at Davao on May 5, 1969, upon the
filing of the corresponding bond of P1,663,030.00 (Amended Record on Appeal, p.
27).  However, the attachment was lifted
on May 15, 1969 upon
defendant’s motion and filing of a counterbond for
P1,663,030 (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 62).

On May 11, 1965,
the complaint was amended to identify the defendant as Marimperio
Compania Naviera S.A.,
petitioner herein (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 38).  In answer to the amended complaint, by way of
special defenses defendant (petitioner herein) alleged among others that the
Charter Party covering its vessel “SS (PAXOI) was entered into by
defendant with Interocean Shipping Co. which is not a
party in the complaint; that defendant has no agreement or relationship
whatsoever with the plaintiffs; that plaintiffs are unknown to defendant; that
the charter party entered into by defendant with the Interocean
Shipping Co. over the vessel “SS PAXOI” does not authorize a
sub-charter of said vessel to other parties; and that at any rate, any such
sub-charter was without the knowledge or consent of defendant or defendant’s
agent, and therefore, has no effect and/or is not binding upon defendant.  By way of counterclaim, defendant prayed that
plaintiffs be ordered to pay defendant (1) the sum of £5,085.133d or its
equivalent, in Philippine currency of P54,929.60, which the defendant failed to
realize under the substitute charter, from May 3, 1965 to May 16, 1965, while
the vessel was under attachment; (2) the sum of £68.7.10 or its equivalent of
P7,132.83, Philippine currency, as premium for defendant’s counterbond for the
first year, and such other additional premiums that will have to be paid by
defendant for additional premiums while the case is pending; and (3) a sum of
not less than P200,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigations (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 64).

On March 16, 1966,
respondent Interocean Shipping Corporation filed a
complaint-in-intervention to collect what it claims to be its loss of income by
way of commission and expenses in the amount of P15,000.00 and the sum of
P2,000.00 for attorney’s fees (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 87).  In its amended answer to the
complaint-in-intervention petitioner, by way of special defenses alleged that
(1) the plaintiff-in-intervention, being the charterer,
did not notify the defendant shipowner, petitioner,
herein, about any alleged sub-charter of the vessel “SS PAXOI” to the
plaintiffs; consequently, there is no privity of
contract between defendant and plaintiffs and it follows that
plaintiff-in-intervention, as charterer, is
responsible for defendant shipowner for the proper
performance of the charter party; (2) that the charter party provides that any
dispute arising from the charter party should be referred to arbitration in
London; that Charterer plaintiff-in-intervention has
not complied with this provision of the charter party; consequently its
complaint-in-intervention is pre-mature; and (3) that the alleged commission of
2-1/2% had not become due for the reason, among others, that the charterer violated the contract, and the full hiring fee
due the shipowner was not paid in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the charter party. 
By way of counterclaim defendant shipowner
charged the plaintiff-in-intervention attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation in the sum of P10,000.00 (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 123).

On November 22, 1969 the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Branch VIII rendered its decision* in favor of defendant Marimperio Compania Naviera, S.A., petitioner herein, and against plaintiffs
Union Import and Export Corporation and Philin
Traders Corporation, respondents herein, dismissing the amended complaint, and
ordering said plaintiff on the counterclaim to pay defendant, jointly and
severally, the amount of £8,011.38 or its equivalent in Philippine currency of
P75,303.40, at the exchange rate of P9.40 to 1 for the unearned charter hire
due to the attachment of the vessel “PAXOI” in Davao,
plus premiums paid on the counterbond as of April 22,
1968 plus the telex and cable charges and the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney’s
fees and costs.  The trial court
dismissed the complaint-in-intervention, ordering the intervenor,
on the counterclaim, to pay defendant the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees,
and the costs (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 315).

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or new trial of
the decision of the trial court on December
23, 1969 (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 286); the intervenor filed its motion for reconsideration and/or new
trial on January 7, 1970
(Amended Record on Appeal, p. 315).

Acting on the two motions for reconsideration, the trial court
reversed its stand in its amended decision dated January 24, 1978. 
The dispositive portion of the amended
decision states:

“FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court renders
judgment for the plaintiffs Union Import & Export Corporation and Philin Traders Corporation, and plaintiff-in-intervention, Interocean Shipping Corporation, and consequently orders
the defendant, Marimperio Compania
Naveria, S.A.:

(1)    
To pay plaintiffs the sum of US$22,500.00
representing the remittance of plaintiffs to said defendant for the first
15-day hire of the vessel ‘SS PAXOI’, including overtime and an overpayment of
US$254.00;

(2)    
To pay plaintiffs the sum of US$16,000.00
corresponding to the remittance of plaintiffs to defendant for the second
15-day hire of the aforesaid vessel;

(3)     To
pay plaintiffs the sum of US$6,982.72 representing the cost of bunker oil, survey
and watering of the said vessel;

(4)     To
pay plaintiffs the sum of US$220,000.00 representing the unrealized profits;
and

(5)     To
pay plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00, as and for attorney’s fees (Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. III, 1957 5d, 644, citing Haussermann vs. Rahmayer, 12 Phil. 350; and others)” (Francisco vs. Matias, G.R. No. L-16349, January 31, 1964; Sison vs. Suntay, G.R. No. No. L-1000, December 28, 1957).

The Court further orders defendant to pay plaintiff-in-intervention
the amount of P15,450.44, representing the latter’s commission as broker, with
interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the
complaint-in-intervention, until fully paid, plus the sum of P2,000.00 as
attorney’s fees.

The Court finally orders the defendant to pay the costs.

In view of the above conclusion, the Court orders the dismissal of
the counterclaims filed by defendant against the plaintiffs and
plaintiff-in-intervention, as well as its motion for the award of damages in
connection with the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment.”

Defendant (petitioner herein), filed a motion for reconsideration
and/or new trial of the amended decision on February 19, 1970 (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 382).  Meanwhile a new Judge was assigned to the Trial
Court (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 541). 
On September 10, 1970
the trial court issued its order of September
10, 1970* denying defendant’s motion for
reconsideration (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 583).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the amended decision of
the lower court except the portion granting commission to the intervenor-appellee, which it reversed thereby dismissing
the complaint-in-intervention.  Its two
motions (1) for reconsideration and/or new trial and (2) for new trial having
been denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution of February 17, 1975
which, however, fixed the amount of attorney’s fees at P100,000.00 instead of
$100,000.00 (Rollo, p. 81), petitioner filed with
this Court its petition for review on certiorari on March 19, 1975 (Rollo, p. 86).

After deliberating on the petition, the Court resolved to require
the respondents to comment thereon, in its resolution dated April 2, 1975 (Rollo,
p. 225).

The comment on petition for review by certiorari was filed
by respondents on April 21, 1975,
praying that the petition for review by certiorari dated March 18, 1975 be dismissed for lack
of merit (Rollo, p. 226).  The reply to comment was filed on May 8, 1975 (Rollo,
p. 259).  The rejoinder to reply to
comment was filed on May 13, 1975
(Rollo, p. 264).

On October 20, 1975, the Court resolved (a) to give due course to
the petition; (b) to treat the petition for review as a special civil action;
and (c) to require both parties to submit their respective memoranda within
thirty (30) days from notice hereof (Rollo, p. 27).

Respondents filed their memoranda on January 27, 1976 (Rollo,
p. 290); petitioner, on February 26,
1976 (Rollo, p. 338).  Respondents’ reply memorandum was filed on April 14, 1976 (Rollo,
p. 413) and Rejoinder to respondents’ reply memorandum was filed on May 28, 1976 (Rollo,
p. 460).

On June 11, 1976,
the Court resolved to admit petitioner’s rejoinder to respondents’ reply
memorandum and to declare this case submitted for decision (Rollo,
p. 489).

The main issues raised by petitioner are:

1.     
Whether or not respondents have the legal
capacity to bring the suit for specific performance against petitioner based on
the charter party; and

2.     
Whether or not the default of Charterer in the payment of the charter hire within the
time agreed upon gives petitioner a right to rescind the charter party extrajudicially.

I.

According to Article 1311 of the Civil Code, a contract takes
effect between the parties who made it, and also their assigns and heirs,
except in cases where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are
not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of
law.  Since a contract may be violated
only by the parties, thereto as against each other, in an action upon that
contract, the real parties in interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant,
must be parties to said contract. 
Therefore, a party who has not taken part in it cannot sue or be sued
for performance or for cancellation thereof, unless he shows that he has a real
interest affected thereby (Macias & Co. v. Warner Barnes & Co., 43
Phil. 155 [1922] and and Salonga
v. Warner Barnes & Co., Ltd., 88 Phil. 125 [1951]; Coquia
v. Fieldmen’s Insurance Co., Inc., 26 SCRA 178
[1968]).

It is undisputed that the charter party, basis of the complaint,
was entered into between petitioner Marimperio Compania Naviera, S.A., through
its duly authorized agent in London, the N & J Vlassopulos,
Ltd., and the Interocean Shipping Company of Manila
through the latter’s duly authorized broker, the Overseas Steamship Co., Inc.,
represented by Matthews, Wrightson Burbridge Ltd., for the Charter of the “SS PAXOI”
(Amended Complaint, Amended Record on Appeal, p. 33; Complaint-in-Intervention,
Amended Record on Appeal, p. 87).  It is
also alleged in both the Complaint (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 18) and the
Amended Complaint (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 39) that the Interocean Shipping Company sublet the said vessel to
respondent Union Import and Export Corporation which in turn sublet the same to
respondent Philin Traders Corporation.  It is admitted by respondents that the charterer is the Interocean
Shipping Company.  Even paragraph 3 of
the complaint-in-intervention alleges that respondents were given the use of
the vessel “pursuant to paragraph 20 of the Uniform Time Charter x x x” which precisely
provides for the subletting of the vessel by the charterer
(Rollo, p. 24). 
Furthermore, Article 652 of the Code of Commerce provides that the
charter party shall contain, among others, the name, surname, and domicile of
the charterer, and if he states that he is acting by
commission, that of the person for whose account he makes the contract.  It is obvious from the disclosure made in the
charter party by the authorized broker, the Overseas Steamship Co., Inc., that
the real charterer is the Interocean
Shipping Company (which sublet the vessel to Union Import and Export
Corporation which in turn sublet it to Philin Traders
Corporation).

In a sublease, there are two leases and two distinct judicial
relations although intimately connected and related to each other, unlike in a
case of assignment of lease, where the lessee transmits absolutely his right,
and his personality disappears; there only remains in the juridical relation
two persons, the lessor and the assignee who is
converted into a lessee (Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, 2nd ed., p.
594).  In other words, in a contract of
sublease, the personality of the lessee does not disappear; he does not transmit
absolutely his rights and obligations to the sublessee;
and the sublessee generally does not have any direct
action against the owner of the premises as lessor,
to require the compliance of the obligations contracted with the plaintiff as
lessee, or vice versa (10 Manresa,
Spanish Civil Code, 438).

However, there are at least two instances in the Civil Code which
allow the lessor to bring an action directly (accion directa)
against the sub-lessee (use and preservation of the premises under Art. 1651,
and rentals under Article 1652).

Art. 1651 reads:

“Without prejudice to his obligation toward the sub-lessor, the sub-lessee is bound to the lessor
for all acts which refer to the use and preservation of the thing leased in the
manner stipulated between the lessor and the lessee.”

Article 1652 reads:

“The sub-lessee is susidiarily
liable to the lessor for any rent due from the
lessee.  However, the sub-lessee shall
not be responsible beyond the amount of rent due from him, in accordance with
the terms of the sub-lease, at the time of the extra-judicial demand by the lessor.

Payments of rent in advance by the sub-lessee shall be deemed not
to have been made, so far as the lessor’s claim is
concerned, unless said payments were effected in virtue of the custom of the
place.”

It will be noted however that in said two Articles it is not the
sub-lessee, but the lessor, who can bring the
action.  In the instant case, it is clear
that the sub-lessee as such cannot maintain the suit they filed with the trial
court (See A. Maluenda and Co. v. Enriuez,
46 Phil. 916).

In the law of agency “with an undisclosed principal, the
Civil Code in Article 1883 reads:

“If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right
of action against the persons with whom the agent has contracted; neither have
such persons against the principal.

In such case the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the
person with whom he has contracted, as if the transaction were his own, except
when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.

The provisions of this article shall be understood to be without
prejudice to the actions between the principal and agent.”

While in the instant case, the true charterers
of the vessel were the private respondents herein and they chartered the vessel
through an intermediary which upon instructions from them did not
disclose their names.  Article 1883
cannot help the private respondents, because although they were the actual
principals in the charter of the vessel, the law does not allow them to bring
any action against the adverse party and vice-versa.

II.

The answer to the question of whether or not the default of charterer in the payment of the charter hire within the
time agreed upon gives petitioner a right to rescind the charter party extrajudicially, is undoubtedly in the affirmative.

Clause 6 of the Charter party specifically provides that the
petitioner has the right to withdraw the vessel from the service of the charterers, without noting any protest and without
interference of any court or any formality in the event that the charterer defaults in the payment of hire.  The payment of hire was to be made every
fifteen (15) days in advance.

It is undisputed that the vessel “SS PAXOI” came on
hire on March 27, 1965.  On March 29, Vlassopulos
notified by letter the charterer through Matthews of
that fact, enclosing therein owner’s debit note for a 15-day hire payable in
advance.  On March 30, 1965 the shipowner
again notified Matthews that the payment for the first 15-day hire was
overdue.  Again on April 2 the shipowner telexed Matthews insisting on the payment, but it
was only on April 7 that the amount of US $22,500.00 was remitted to Williams
Deacons Bank, Ltd. through the Rizal Commercial
Banking Corporation for the account of Vlassopulos,
agent of petitioner, corresponding to the first 15-day hire from March 27 to April 11, 1965.

On April 8, 1965,
Vlassopulos acknowledged receipt of the payment,
again with a debit note for the second 15-day hire and overtime which was due
on April 11, 1965.  On April
23, 1965, Vlassopulos notified Matthews
by telex that charterers were in default and in
accordance with Clause 6 of the charter party, the vessel was being withdrawn
from charterer’s service, holding them responsible
for unpaid hire and all other legal claims of the owner.  Respondents remitted the sum of US $6,000.00
and US $10,000.00 to the bank only on April
26, 1965 representing payment for the second 15-day hire from April
12 to April 27, 1965,
received and accepted by the payee, Vlassopulos
without any comment or protest.

Unquestionably, as of April
23, 1965, when Vlassopulos notified
Matthews of the withdrawal of the vessel from the Charterers‘
service, the latter was already in default. 
Accordingly, under Clause 6 of the charter party the owners had the
right to withdraw “SS PAXOI” from the service of charterers,
which withdrawal they did.

The question that now arises is whether or not petitioner can
rescind the charter party extrajudicially.  The answer is also in the affirmative.  A contract is the law between the contracting
parties, and when there is nothing in it which is contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public policy or public order, the validity of the contract must be
sustained (Consolidated Textile Mills, Inc. v. Reparations Commission, 22 SCRA
674 [1968]; Lazo v. Republic Surety & Insurance
Co., Inc., 31 SCRA 329 [1970]; Castro v. Court of Appeals, 99 SCRA 722 [1980]; Escano v. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 197 [1980]).  A judicial action for the rescission of a
contract is not necessary where the contract provides that it may be revoked
and cancelled for violation of any of its terms and conditions (Enrile v. Court of Appeals, 29 SCRA 504 [1969]; University
of the Philippines v. De los Angeles, 35 SCRA 102
[1970]; Palay, Inc. v. Clave, 124 SCRA 638 [1983]).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, (1) the decision of the Court
of Appeals affirming the amended decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch VIII, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE except for that portion
of the decision dismissing the complaint-in-intervention; and (2) the original
decision of the trial court is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Cruz, and Gancayco,
JJ., concur.

*
Decision of the Fourth Division, penned by Associate Justice Pacifico P. de Castro (concurred in by Justices Guillermo
S. Santos and Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr.) who also penned
the questioned resolution.

*
Rendered by Judge Manuel P. Barcelona.

*
Issued by Judge Abundio
Z. Arrieta.