Pasricha v. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc.

,
G.R. No. 136409, March 14, 2008
FACTS:

Respondent Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc. and petitioners executed two Contracts of
Lease whereby the former, as lessor, agreed to lease to the latter Units 22, 24, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37 and 38 of the San Luis Building, located at 1006 M.Y. Orosa cor. T.M. Kalaw
Streets, Ermita, Manila. Petitioners, in turn, agreed to pay monthly rentals. Petitioners
religiously paid the monthly rentals until May 1992. After that, however, despite repeated
demands, petitioners continuously refused to pay the stipulated rent. Because petitioners
still refused to comply, a complaint for ejectment was filed by private respondent through
its representative, Ms. Bautista, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila.
Petitioners admitted their failure to pay the stipulated rent for the leased premises starting
July until November 1992, but claimed that such refusal was justified because of the
internal squabble in respondent company as to the person authorized to receive payment.
On November 24, 1994, the MeTC rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for
ejectment. It considered petitioners’ non-payment of rentals as unjustified. The court held
that mere willingness to pay the rent did not amount to payment of the obligation;
petitioners should have deposited their payment in the name of respondent company. The
court, however, dismissed the complaint because of Ms. Bautista’s alleged lack of
authority to sue on behalf of the corporation.

Deciding the case on appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 1, in Civil
Case No. 94-72515, reversed and set aside the MeTC Decision. The court adopted the
MeTC’s finding on petitioners’ unjustified refusal to pay the rent, which is a valid ground
for ejectment. It, however, faulted the MeTC in dismissing the case on the ground of lack of
capacity to sue. Instead, it upheld Ms. Bautista’s authority to represent respondent
notwithstanding the absence of a board resolution to that effect, since her authority was
implied from her power as a general manager/treasurer of the company.

The CA affirmed the RTC Decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners may be validly ejected from the leased premises.

RULING:

Yes. The evidence of petitioners’ non-payment of the stipulated rent is overwhelming. What
was, instead, clearly established by the evidence was petitioners’ non-payment of rentals
because ostensibly they did not know to whom payment should be made. However, this
did not justify their failure to pay, because if such were the case, they were not without
any remedy. They should have availed of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines
on the consignation of payment and of the Rules of Court on interpleader. Consignation
shall be made by depositing the things due at the disposal of a judicial authority, before
whom the tender of payment shall be proved in a proper case, and the announcement of
the consignation in other cases.

In the instant case, consignation alone would have produced the effect of payment of the
rentals.

Moreover, Section 1, Rule 62 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. When interpleader proper. – Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject
matter are or may be made against a person who claims no interest whatever in the
subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants,
he may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and
litigate their several claims among themselves.

Otherwise stated, an action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to
whom payment of rentals should be made due to conflicting claims on the property (or on
the right to collect).60 The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against double liability
but to protect him against double vexation in respect of one liability.

Notably, instead of availing of the above remedies, petitioners opted to refrain from making
payments.