Soriano v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, spouses Antero and Virginia Soriano, entered into a 20-year Contract of Lease with petitioners, spouses Miguel Jr. and Julieta Soriano, on October 5, 1981, for a 420-square-meter parcel of land in Pamplona, Las Piñas. The contract stipulated that the lessees could not sublease or assign the property without the lessors' written consent. Alleging that petitioners violated this clause by subleasing portions of the property to various third parties, including Marilou P. Del Castillo, and operating businesses such as a beauty parlor, photography shop, auto supply dealer, and money changer without their consent, respondents filed an ejectment complaint on February 24, 1994. Petitioners denied the sublease allegations, asserting that the agreements with third parties were joint venture agreements and that the purported sublease contract with Marilou P. Del Castillo was a forgery. Procedural History: The ejectment case was consolidated with a consignation case filed by petitioners for rental fees they claimed respondents refused to accept. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of the respondents on April 15, 1996, ordering petitioners to vacate the premises and pay monthly rentals. The MeTC found that the contract with Marilou P. Del Castillo was a sublease, giving weight to her affidavit and an NBI report stating the signature on the purported Joint Venture Agreement was a forgery. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision in toto on April 3, 1997. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC on May 6, 1997. Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 18, 1997, after seeking an extension. On August 18, 1997, the CA denied the petition, ruling it was filed out of time and lacked merit, affirming the RTC's decision. The Petition: In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, petitioners seek to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision. They argue that the CA erred in holding their petition was filed out of time, contending that notice should have been served upon their counsel of record, Rico & Associates Law Office, not on petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano individually. Petitioners also claim the CA misappreciated the evidence by giving credence to a contract of lease with Marilou P. Del Castillo that they assert was a forgery. Furthermore, they argue the CA disregarded evidence proving they did not violate their lease agreement, as the arrangement with Marilou P. Del Castillo was a joint venture, not a sublease. They seek dismissal of the ejectment complaint and a restraining order against execution and demolition proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review filed before the Court of Appeals was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioners subleased a portion of the subject property to Marilou P. Del Castillo in violation of the contract of lease. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the "Contract of Lease" dated 3 July 1993, which petitioners claim was a forgery. Whether the evidence on record proves that the agreement between petitioners and Marilou del Castillo was a joint venture agreement and not a sublease.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition for review was timely filed. The Court also found that there was a valid contract of (sub)lease between petitioners and Marilou P. Del Castillo, which constituted a violation of the contract of lease with the respondents. The Court reiterated that the signatures of the contracting parties are essential for the perfection of a contract, while the signatures of witnesses and the notary public are primarily for the binding effect on third parties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition before the Court of Appeals: The Court ruled that the petition was timely filed. It emphasized that service of court processes must be made upon the counsel of record. In this case, the counsel of record was Rico & Associates Law Office. Therefore, the reglementary period for filing the petition for review should have been counted from the date the law firm received the order denying the motion for reconsideration (June 2, 1997), not from the date petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano received it (May 28, 1997). The Court clarified that even if Atty. Soriano appeared as a collaborating counsel, notice to him was not legally effective as long as Rico & Associates Law Office was the counsel of record and no formal substitution or specific order for service upon Atty. Soriano was made. The Court stressed that procedural rules are meant to serve substantial justice and should not override it. On the existence of a sublease agreement and violation of the contract of lease: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that a valid contract of (sub)lease existed between petitioners and Marilou P. Del Castillo. The Court noted that the issue of whether the agreement was a sublease or a joint venture involved questions of fact, which are generally not reviewed by the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari. On the validity of the Contract of Lease: The Court found that the signatures of the contracting parties, petitioner Julieta Soriano and Marilou P. Del Castillo, on the contract of lease were legitimate. The fact that the signatures of the witnesses and the notary public were forgeries did not negate the existence of a valid contract of (sub)lease between the parties themselves. The Court explained that these additional signatures are necessary to make the contract binding on third parties, but their absence does not affect the perfection of the contract between the principal parties. On whether the agreement was a joint venture or a sublease: Therefore, the existence of this sublease agreement constituted a clear violation of the prohibition against subleasing in the original contract of lease between petitioners and respondents.
Main Doctrine
Service of court processes must be made upon the counsel of record. Notice to the client or another lawyer not the counsel of record is not legally effective and does not start the reglementary period for appeal. The Court also held that the existence of a valid contract of lease between petitioners and a third party, evidenced by the legitimate signatures of the contracting parties, is sufficient to establish a violation of the prohibition on sublease, even if the signatures of witnesses and the notary public were forgeries, as these are only necessary for the contract to be binding on third parties.