Professional Documents
Culture Documents
02 Optima Realty vs. Hertz Phil. GR No. 183035 PDF
02 Optima Realty vs. Hertz Phil. GR No. 183035 PDF
~upreme <!Court
;fflanila
FIRST DIVISION
Promulgated:
HERTZ PHIL. EXCLUSIVE CARS,
INC., JAN 0 9 2013 .
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------- ------x
DECISION
SERENO, CJ:
1
Rollo, pp. 39-48; CA Decision dated 17 March 2008, penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and
concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Ramon R. Garcia.
2
!d. at 38; CA Resolution dated 20 May 2008, penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and
concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Ramon R. Garcia.
3
ld. at 49-61; RTC Decision dated 16 March 2007, penned by Presiding Judge Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-
Delorino.
4
CA rolla, pp. 47-49; RTC Resolution dated 18 June 2007, penned by Presiding Judge Jenny Lind R.
Aldecoa-Delorino.
5
ld. at 205-209; MeTC Decision dated 22 May 2006, penned by Judge Dina Pestafio Teves.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 183035
Makati City in Civil Case No. 90842 evicting respondent Hertz Phil.
Exclusive Cars, Inc. (Hertz) and ordering it to pay back rentals and other
arrearages to petitioner Optima Realty Corporation (Optima).
6
Id. at 84-85; Contract of Lease dated 12 December 2002.
7
Id. at 153-154; Amendment to the Contract of Lease dated 9 March 2004.
8
Id. at 68; Complaint of Exclusive Cars, Inc. dated 30 January 2006.
9
Id. at 97.
10
Id. at 105; letter of Optima dated 8 December 2005.
11
Id. at 114; Complaint (With Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction) dated 10 March 2006.
12
Id.
13
Id. at 103; letter of Optima dated 8 December 2005.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 183035
new negotiation between the parties and upon written notice by the lessee to
the lessor at least 90 days prior to the termination of the lease period.14 As no
letter was received from Hertz regarding its intention to seek negotiation and
extension of the lease contract within the 90-day period, Optima informed it
that the lease would expire on 28 February 2006 and would not be
renewed.15
14
Id. at 86; Contract of Lease dated 12 December 2002.
15
Id. at 103; letter of Optima dated 8 December 2005.
16
Id. at 104; letter of Hertz dated 21 December 2005.
17
Id. at 159-160; letter of Picazo Buyco Tan Fider & Santos dated 1 March 2006.
18
Id. at 160.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 183035
19
Id. at 117; Complaint (With Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction) dated 10 March 2006.
20
Id. at 111-122.
21
Id. at 352; Sheriff’s Return dated 15 March 2006.
22
Id. at 175-177.
23
Id. at 176; Motion for Leave of Court to file Answer with Counterclaim and to Admit Answer with
Counterclaim.
24
Id.
25
Id. at 205-209.
26
Id. at 208.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 183035
SO ORDERED.32
Aggrieved by the ruling of the appellate court, petitioner then filed the
instant Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court.34
THE ISSUES
As culled from the records, the following issues are submitted for
resolution by this Court:
We grant the Petition and reverse the assailed Decision and Resolution
of the appellate court.
32
Rollo, pp. 47-48.
33
Id. at 38.
34
Id. at 13-32; Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court) dated 27 June 2008.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 183035
35
Santos v. NLRC, 325 Phil. 145 (1996).
36
G.R. No. 171137, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 612, 627-628.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 183035
In this case, the records show that the following statement appeared in
respondent’s Motion for Leave to File Answer:
II
We disagree.
37
CA rollo, p. 176.
38
Id. at 178-185.
39
Id. at 185-186.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 183035
Here, while there is identity of parties in both cases, we find that the
rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for under the Complaint for Specific
Performance and those under the present Unlawful Detainer Complaint are
different. As aptly found by the trial court:
As the rights asserted and the reliefs sought in the two cases are
different, we find that the pendency of the Complaint for Specific
Performance is not a bar to the institution of the present case for ejectment.
III
We find that the RTC’s ruling upholding the ejectment of Hertz from
the building premises was proper. First, respondent failed to pay rental
40
Ssangyong Corp. v. Unimarine Shipping Lines, Inc., 512 Phil. 171 (2005).
41
CA rollo, p. 43; RTC Decision dated 16 March 2007.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 183035
arrearages and utility bills to Optima; and, second, the Contract of Lease
expired without any request from Hertz for a renegotiation thereof at least 90
days prior to its expiration.
On the first ground, the records show that Hertz failed to pay rental
arrearages and utility bills to Optima. Failure to pay timely rentals and utility
charges is an event of default under the Contract of Lease,42 entitling the
lessor to terminate the lease.
Moreover, the failure of Hertz to pay timely rentals and utility charges
entitles the lessor to judicially eject it under the provisions of the Civil
Code.43
On the second ground, the records likewise show that the lease had
already expired on 28 February 2006 because of Hertz’s failure to request a
renegotiation at least 90 days prior to the termination of the lease period.
As the lease was set to expire on 28 February 2006, Hertz had until 30
November 2005 within which to express its interest in negotiating an
extension of the lease with Optima. However, Hertz failed to communicate
its intention to negotiate for an extension of the lease within the time agreed
upon by the parties. Thus, by its own provisions, the Contract of Lease
expired on 28 February 2006.
42
Id. at 93; Contract of Lease dated 12 December 2002.
43
CIVIL CODE, Art. 1673 (2).
44
CA rollo, p. 86; Contract of Lease dated 12 December 2002.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 183035
Under the Civil Code, the expiry of the period agreed upon by the
parties is likewise a ground for judicial ejectment. 45
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
IENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION