Sime Darby Pilipinas v. Goodyear Philippines

G.R. No. 182148 & G.R. No. 183210 · 2011-06-08 · J. MENDOZA, J.: · Primary: Civil; Secondary: Commercial
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Macgraphics leased a billboard to Sime Darby. Sime Darby later executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to sell its assets, including its leasehold rights over the billboard, to Goodyear. A Deed of Assignment was executed. Sime Darby notified Macgraphics of the assignment. Goodyear then negotiated with Macgraphics for a new design and rental rate for the billboard, but Macgraphics informed Sime Darby that it could not consent to the assignment of the lease to Goodyear, citing the need for drastic changes and unforeseen commitment of resources. Macgraphics also informed Goodyear of its refusal to consent to the assignment. Procedural History: Goodyear demanded partial rescission of the Deed of Assignment from Sime Darby due to the inability to deliver the leasehold rights. When Sime Darby refused, Goodyear filed a civil case against Sime Darby and Macgraphics. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Goodyear's complaint for partial rescission, ordering Sime Darby to pay Goodyear, and also ordered Goodyear to pay Macgraphics attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Both Sime Darby and Goodyear filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Sime Darby argued that Macgraphics impliedly consented to the assignment and that laches had set in due to Macgraphics' delay in responding. Goodyear argued that rescission was proper and questioned its liability for attorney's fees to Macgraphics, while also seeking attorney's fees from Sime Darby.

Issue(s)

Whether partial rescission of the Deed of Assignment is proper. Whether Macgraphics is entitled to an award of attorney's fees.

Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petitions, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that partial rescission of the Deed of Assignment was proper, and that Macgraphics was entitled to attorney's fees.

Ratio Decidendi

On the propriety of partial rescission of the Deed of Assignment: The Court reiterated that under Article 1649 of the New Civil Code, a lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. In this case, the lease contract between Sime Darby and Macgraphics did not contain any clause allowing unilateral assignment. The Court found no evidence that Macgraphics gave its consent, either express or implied, to the assignment of the lease to Goodyear. The negotiations between Goodyear and Macgraphics for a new design and rental rate were considered separate transactions and did not constitute implied consent to the assignment of the existing lease. Therefore, Sime Darby failed to deliver the object of the Deed of Assignment, justifying Goodyear's demand for rescission under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code. The Court also dismissed Sime Darby's argument of laches, noting it was raised for the first time on appeal and that Macgraphics' actions did not constitute unreasonable delay. On the entitlement of Macgraphics to attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees to Macgraphics. It cited Article 2208 of the Civil Code, which allows for attorney's fees when a party's act or omission compels another to litigate to protect its interest, or when it is just and equitable. The Court found that Goodyear's filing of a baseless complaint against Macgraphics compelled Macgraphics to incur expenses to protect its rights and interests. Therefore, it was equitable to hold Goodyear liable for Macgraphics' attorney's fees. The Court denied Goodyear's claim for attorney's fees against Sime Darby, stating that attorney's fees are not an automatic consequence of winning a suit and that Goodyear's claim against Sime Darby was not demandable due to Macgraphics' lack of consent.

Main Doctrine

The assignment of a lease contract without the consent of the lessor is not valid, absent any stipulation to the contrary, and may be a ground for rescission of the assignment. Negotiations between the assignee and the lessor for a new contract do not constitute implied consent to the assignment of the existing lease.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →