G.R. No. 142383 - ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, VS. CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, after due process, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff: Ordering defendant and all other persons claiming right under it to VACATE the subject premises. For other just reliefs. [14] The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3215. The ATC filed a supplemental complaint in Civil Case No. 2052-93-C impleading the MTC of Calamba as party-defendant. In its answer to the complaint, the CSE alleged that the ATC violated the MOA and the parties' lease agreement by refusing to negotiate the amount of annual rental on or before July 1, 1993. On January 25, 1994, the RTC, Branch 37, issued in Civil Case No. 2052-93-C a temporary restraining order, restraining the MTC of Calamba from hearing the unlawful detainer case so as not to render the RTC decision moot and academic. [15] The court thereafter issued a writ of preliminary injunction. During the pre-trial in Civil Case No. 2052-93-C, the ATC marked in evidence as Exhibit "F" a copy of the Fair Rental Study of the leased property made by the Asian Appraisal Co., Inc. On March 23, 1994, the court issued a pre-trial order defining the issues to be litigated by the parties: "1. Was the termination by CSE of the Lease Agreement dated December 13, 1972, the Adoption of Lease Agreement with Amendments dated May 30, 1975, and the Memorandum of Agreement dated July 24, 1991, valid or not? 2. Can ATC recovered ( sic ) damages, attorney's fees and cost from CSE and vice versa? x x x" [16] On April 14, 1994, the CSE filed a motion for summary judgment. On August 22, 1994, the RTC granted the motion. On August 23, 1994, a decision was rendered in favor of the CSE, the decretal portion of which reads: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the defendant Canlubang Sugar Estate (CSE) and against the plaintiff Asian Transmission Corporation (ATC) and declaring CSE's termination of the lease contract as valid. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court against the defendants is hereby lifted and set aside. The complaint and the supplemental complaint are DISMISSED. [17] The court held that the plaintiff violated its MOA and lease agreement with the CSE when it refused to negotiate for an increased annual rental effective July 1, 1993 as provided for in Section 5 of the MOA and lease agreement: Thus, the first (1st) review and adjustment of annual rental were to cover the period from July 1, 1973 to June 30, 1978, the second (2nd) five (5) year period to cover the period from July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1983, the third (3rd) five (5) year period to cover the period from July 1, 1983 to June 30, 1988, the fourth (4th) five-year period to cover period from July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1993 and the fifth (5th) five (5) year period to cover the period from July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1998. Clearly, by refusing to enter into a review of the rental and to claim that the review should be done in 1996 is a violation of the above-cited provision of t