G.R. No. 120554 . September 21, 1999.
SO PING BUN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, TEK HUA ENTERPRISES CORP. and MANUEL C. TIONG, respondents.

FACTS

In 1963, Tek Hua Trading Co., through managing partner So Pek Giok, entered into lease agreements with Dee C. Chuan & Sons Inc. (DCCSI) for premises on Soler Street, Binondo, Manila. The one-year contracts provided for month-to-month occupancy after expiration. Tek Hua Trading Co. was dissolved in 1976, and its members, including Manuel C. Tiong, formed respondent Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. So Pek Giok died in 1986, and his grandson, petitioner So Ping Bun, occupied the warehouse for his business, Trendsetter Marketing. DCCSI sent rent increase letters and new lease contracts to Tek Hua Enterprises in 1989 and 1990, which were unanswered, but the lease was not rescinded. On March 1, 1991, Tiong demanded that So Ping Bun vacate the premises. So Ping Bun refused and requested lease contracts from DCCSI in favor of Trendsetter Marketing, which were executed on March 11, 1991. Respondents filed a suit for injunction, seeking nullification of the new leases and damages. The trial court annulled the leases, made permanent the injunction, awarded attorney’s fees, and dismissed Tiong’s complaint and counterclaims. The Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced the attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court’s decision finding So Ping Bun guilty of tortious interference of contract.
2. Whether the appellate court erred in awarding attorney’s fees of P200,000.00 in favor of private respondents.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court found that the elements of tortious interference were present: a valid contract (the month-to-month lease between DCCSI and Tek Hua), knowledge by So Ping Bun of this contract, and interference without legal justification. However, the Court ruled that petitioner’s interference was justified. He acted to further his own financial interest in securing a lease for his business, with no evidence of deliberate wrongful motives or malice. Citing Gilchrist vs. Cuddy, the Court held that where the impulse behind one’s conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than wrongful motives, it cannot be considered malicious interference. Therefore, petitioner was not liable for tortious interference.
2. The Supreme Court modified the award of attorney’s fees. While the trial court’s award was reduced by the Court of Appeals from P500,000.00 to P200,000.00, the Supreme Court found this amount still excessive. Considering the nature of the case and judicial discretion, the Court further reduced the attorney’s fees to P100,000.00 as reasonable compensation.
The petition was DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, reducing the attorney’s fees to P100,000.00.