G.R. No. 154852 - MULTINATIONAL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AND DANILO F. CUNETA, VS. ARA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE AGENCY, INC., REPRESENTED BY THERESA C. MAMAED, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [respondent] and as against the [petitioners], ordering the latter to pay the [respondent] jointly and severally the following amounts: P591,250.00, as actual damages; P30,000.00, as attorneys fees; and Costs of the suit. [4] The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts The antecedents are summarized by the appellate court as follows: In the Complaint filed below, it is alleged that Ara Security and Surveillance, Inc. [(Ara)] was hired by Multinational Village Homeowners Association, Inc. [(Multinational)] to provide security services at the Multinational Village, Parañaque, Metro Manila. Their agreement was embodied in a document, entitled Contract of Guards Services dated May 30, 1994. The contract was to take effect for a period of one (1) year from May 25, 1994 up to May 25, 1995 on a monthly fee of One Hundred Seven Thousand Five Hundred (P107,500.00) Pesos, payable every 15th and end of the month without need of demand. Under the same contract, Ara will provide Multinational with thirty (30) guards. Not long after, on August 29, 1994, Danilo F. Cuneta, President of Multinational, wrote Ara a letter terminating the aforesaid contract effective 1900 hours of August 31, 1994, having found the guards services to be unsatisfactory, for repeated violations of the Security Guards Code of Ethics and Conduct, and total disregard of the General Order causing loss of confidence in the ability of the security guards to comply with the terms of the contract. Ara replied requesting Multinational to reconsider its position, which fell on deaf ears. Thus, on September 13, 1994, Ara commenced the present suit for injunction with preliminary injunction, preliminary mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order with damages. On September 15, 1994, a temporary restraining order was issued enjoining Multinational, their agents and all persons acting in their behalf from enforcing the letter dated August 29, 1994 and [from] replacing the guards with another agency. The injunctive relief was then set for hearing. Summons having been served properly, Multinational submitted an Answer together with an opposition to the injunction claiming that it has the right to pre-terminate the contract under paragraph 5 thereof stating: 5. MODE OF PAYMENT: For and in consideration of the above services and during the effectivity of this Contract, the CLIENT shall pay the SECURITY COMPANY the sum indicated in the hereto attached cost analysis per month which consideration shall be paid every 15th and end of the month without need of demand. The CLIENT hereby agrees that it shall pay interest on accounts covered by billings received by the CLIENT and unpaid for thirty (30) days or more at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. This shall be without prejedice (sic) to the right of the SECURITY COMPANY to terminate this contract immediately, for failure