1. Padilla entered into a lease agreement with Quinto to lease a hotel complex for 10 years and they executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to jointly share earnings from rentals. They then agreed to lease the property to Cecilia under the same terms.
2. After one year, the hotel was totally damaged, costing an estimated P12.5 million. Cecilia claimed she was not liable as the contract was not perfected. Padilla filed a complaint against Cecilia based on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Quinto.
3. The Court ruled that the SPA granted to Padilla was coupled with interest and irrevocable, as Padilla introduced
1. Padilla entered into a lease agreement with Quinto to lease a hotel complex for 10 years and they executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to jointly share earnings from rentals. They then agreed to lease the property to Cecilia under the same terms.
2. After one year, the hotel was totally damaged, costing an estimated P12.5 million. Cecilia claimed she was not liable as the contract was not perfected. Padilla filed a complaint against Cecilia based on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Quinto.
3. The Court ruled that the SPA granted to Padilla was coupled with interest and irrevocable, as Padilla introduced
1. Padilla entered into a lease agreement with Quinto to lease a hotel complex for 10 years and they executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to jointly share earnings from rentals. They then agreed to lease the property to Cecilia under the same terms.
2. After one year, the hotel was totally damaged, costing an estimated P12.5 million. Cecilia claimed she was not liable as the contract was not perfected. Padilla filed a complaint against Cecilia based on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Quinto.
3. The Court ruled that the SPA granted to Padilla was coupled with interest and irrevocable, as Padilla introduced
1. Padilla entered into a lease agreement with Quinto to lease a hotel complex for 10 years and they executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to jointly share earnings from rentals. They then agreed to lease the property to Cecilia under the same terms.
2. After one year, the hotel was totally damaged, costing an estimated P12.5 million. Cecilia claimed she was not liable as the contract was not perfected. Padilla filed a complaint against Cecilia based on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Quinto.
3. The Court ruled that the SPA granted to Padilla was coupled with interest and irrevocable, as Padilla introduced
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Locsin v.
Puerto Galera Resort Hotel
FACTS: Quinto is the registered owner of a hotel complex. Padilla, a resort manager and developer, entered into a lease contract with Quinto over the hotel complex for a term of 10 years in 1993, the contract was given him the right to introduce improvements to the property and extended up to 2013. Padilla and Quinto executed a Memorandum of Agreement to jointly share in the earnings to be derived from the rentals. After this, they agreed to lease the hotel complex to Cecilia pursuant to the MOA, for a period of 10 years. However, after one year they discovered that the premises was totally damaged, the estimated cost of the damages and losses amounted to P12,500,000.00 which they demanded Cecillia to pay Cecilia claimed that the contract of lease was not yet perfected and was in its preparatory stages. Thus, she cannot be held liable for the said losses and damages. Padilla, in his personal capacity and in behalf of PGRHI and Quinto, instituted the instant complaint for damages against Cecilia pursuant to the Special Power of Attorney executed by Quinto in his favor. Cecilia countered that there is no cause of action against her as there was no perfected contract when because it was not finalized. Quinto manifested that he would move for the dismissal of the case against Cecilia alleging that he did not fully understand the contents of the SPA he accomplished in favor of Padilla and he never intended to authorize Padilla to file a case against Cecilia in his behalf. Meanwhile, the trial continued. RTC granted Quinto's Motion to Dismiss in an Order, held that the complaint failed to state a cause of action as Padilla and PGRHI are not real parties in interest to be benefited or injured by the judgment, and they clarified that there was no perfected contract of lease between the parties as the lease agreement failed to materialize. CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC, they held that the agency between Quinto and Padilla is one coupled with interest, hence, irrevocable. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was improper
ISSUE: 1. Whether the SPA or the contract of agency between Padilla and Quinto had been effectively revoked by Quinto.
2. Whether Padilla is a real party-in-interest.
3. Whether Cecilia is entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
RULING: The Court did not agree that CA erred in its decision. 1. The power of the agent ceases when the will or permission is withdrawn by the principal. Thus, generally, the agency may be revoked by the principal at will. However, an exception to the revocability of a contract of agency is when it is coupled with interest because the agency becomes part of another obligation or agreement. It is not solely the rights of the principal, but also that of the agent and third persons, which are affected. In this case, the agency granted by Quinto to Padilla is coupled with interest because it is the means of fulfilling an obligation already contracted which is the MOA between Padilla and Quinto with stipulation of to look for prospective tenants which they have both acknowledged to have respective interests, to share in the earnings, to individually or collectively defend, protect or enforce their rights in the said property, and free access for visitorial and inspection rights.
Quinto executed an SPA authorizing Padilla to act in his behalf and with his full authority to ask, negotiate, demand, sue for, litigate, recover, and receive all sums of money from the unlawful acts and/or negligence of the Lessee under the Lease Agreement.
The lease agreement pertained to the hotel complex along with the improvements made therein. Thus, they are not separate and distinct from each other such that the lease agreement can stand alone without its object.
There was also a perfected contract because preparation, perfection, and consummation has been fulfilled when the parties agreed that the period of lease shall be for 10 years with a monthly rental of P90,000.00 and she deposited a down payment of P500,000.00. Thereafter, she took over the hotel complex.
2. SPA is one coupled with interest, the Court rule that Padilla possesses material interest to prosecute the instant petition with or without the desired cooperation of Quinto. -Quinto and Padilla also agreed to individually or collectively defend, protect or enforce their rights, title and/or interests in the said property. -MOA categorically states that Padilla introduced "very substantial improvements" to the hotel complex, thus, he has everything to lose when Cecilia abandoned the property in a state of ruin.
3. Padilla filed the complaint for damages against Cecilia was merely exercising his right to litigate based on his material interest over the hotel complex having introduced very substantial improvements therein. With the MOA and SPA executed in his favor, he had factual and legal bases to back up his claim.
Applying An Appropriate Standard of Evidence in Victim Identification Policies and Practice in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, and Thailand
