So Ping Bun v.

CA

G.R. No. 120554, 21 September 1999

Second Division, J, Quisumbing

According to Article 1314, Any third person who induces another to violate his contract
shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.

Facts:

The case is petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals. In 1963, Tek Hua
Trading Co. through its managing partner, So Pek Giok entered into 4 lease agreements
with lessor Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. (DCCI) for several properties located at Soler
Street Binondo, Manila. The agreements each had a 1-year term after which, the lease
would be on a month-to-month basis. The areas were used to store textiles of the lessee.

In 1973, Tek Hua Trading Co. dissolved. Later on, the original members including
Manuel Tiong formed Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. In 1986, So Pek Giok died. The leased
areas were then occupied but his grandson, So Ping Bun, for his own textile business,
Trendsetter Marketing.

In 1991, Manuel Tiong wrote So Ping Bun advising him that he has decided to return
into the textile business and to vacate his stocks in Tek Hua Enterprising Corp.
warehouse. So Ping Bun refused to vacate and requested formal contract of lease with
DCCI in favor of Trendsetter Marketing claiming that he had been occupying the
premises and religiously paid the rent. The lease contracts were executed in favor of
Trendsetter Marketing.

Thus, a suit for injunction seeking the nullification of the lease contracts between DCCI
and Trendsetter Marketing was filed.

Issue:

WON So Ping Bun is guilty of tortuous interference of contract?

Ruling: Yes, So Ping Bun is guilty of tortuous interference of contract but his filing of
motion for reconsideration, his case were modified.

A duty which the law of torts is concerned with is respect for the property of others, and
one person of the enjoyment may predicate a cause of action ex delicto upon an unlawful
interference by the other of his private right. This may pertain to a situation where a
third person induces a party to renege on or violate his undertaking under a contract.
The elements of tort interference are:

a. Existence of a valid contract

b. Knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract

c. Interference of the third person without legal justification or excuse.

In the case, Trendsetter Marketing asked DCCSI to execute lease contracts in its favor,
and as a result petitioner deprived Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. of the latter’s property
rights. The 3 elements are sufficiently met.

The Court, however, ruled that malice did not motivate petitioner’s actions. While there
was no malice in the interference of a contract, and the impulse behind one’s conduct
lies in a proper business interest that in wrongful motives, a party cannot be a malicious
interferer

There was no malice in this case. Where the alleged interferer is financially interested,
and such interest motivates his conduct, it cannot be said that he is an officious or
malicious intermeddler. In the instant case, it is clear that petitioner So Ping Bun
prevailed upon DCCSI to lease the warehouse to his enterprise at the expense of
respondent corporation. Though petitioner took interest in the property of respondent
corporation and benefited from it, nothing on record imputes deliberate wrongful
motives or malice on him.