View full case

SO PING BUN v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over lease contracts for warehouse premises located in Binondo, Manila. In 1963, Tek Hua Trading Co. entered into lease agreements with lessor De C. Chuan & Sons Inc. (DCCSI) for four lease contracts with a one-year term. When the contracts expired, Tek Hua continued to occupy the premises.

In 1976, Tek Hua Trading Co. was dissolved and Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. was formed. So Ping Bun, grandson of the managing partner of Tek Hua Trading, occupied the warehouse for his own textile business.

In 1989 and 1990, DCCSI sent letters informing Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. of rent increases and enclosed new lease contracts. Private respondents did not reply to the letters.

In 1991, private respondent Tiong sent a letter to petitioner So Ping Bun, demanding that he vacate the premises. Petitioner refused, and later requested formal lease contracts from DCCSI for his business Trendsetter Marketing.

Private respondents filed a suit for injunction and sought nullification of the lease contracts between DCCSI and petitioner. After trial, the trial court annulled the lease contracts, issued a permanent injunction, ordered petitioner to pay attorney's fees, and dismissed the claims of one of the private respondents.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, and on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, but reduced the attorney's fees.

Petitioner now raises issues regarding tortious interference of contract and the award of attorney's fees.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decision finding So Ping Bun guilty of tortuous interference of contract.

  2. Whether the appellate court erred in awarding attorney's fees of P200,000.00 in favor of private respondents.

RULING:

  1. The appellate court did not err in affirming the trial court's decision finding So Ping Bun guilty of tortuous interference of contract. The court found that So Ping Bun continued to occupy the premises even after the lease contracts expired and that he refused to vacate despite being given notice by the president of Tek Hua Enterprising Corporation. Thus, So Ping Bun's actions interfered with the rights of Tek Hua Enterprising Corporation as the rightful lessee of the premises.

  2. The appellate court did not err in awarding attorney's fees of P200,000.00 in favor of private respondents. The court considered the complexity of the case, the time and effort exerted by the respondents' counsel, and the success achieved by the respondents in the case as bases for the award of attorney's fees.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Tortuous interference of contract occurs when a third party intentionally interferes with the performance of a contract between two parties, causing harm or damage to one of the parties.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded based on equity, justice, and fairness, taking into consideration the nature of the case, the time and effort expended by counsel, and the success achieved.