GR 175554; (December, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175554 December 23, 2008
EDSEL LIGA, petitioner, vs. ALLEGRO RESOURCES CORP., respondent.
FACTS
Ortigas & Company leased land to La Paz Investment & Realty Corporation, which constructed the Greenhills Shopping Arcade (GSA). Petitioner Edsel Liga was a sub-lessee of Unit No. 26. La Paz’s lease with Ortigas expired on December 31, 2000. Liga’s continued occupancy from January 1, 2001, was by Ortigas’s tolerance. On September 3, 2001, Ortigas leased the GSA to respondent Allegro Resources Corporation. As the new lessee, Allegro offered to sublease the unit to Liga. They entered into a “Rental Information” agreement where Liga agreed to pay a monthly rental of P40,000.00 starting September 1, 2001, and to pay back rentals to Ortigas for January to August 2001. Liga paid an advance rental and security deposit but subsequently failed to pay any rentals. Allegro filed an ejectment case. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled for Allegro. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed but modified the monetary awards, reducing the rental to P20,000.00 per month and extending the lease for two years. The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC decision, reinstating the P40,000.00 monthly rental and ordering Liga to pay back rentals to Ortigas for January-August 2001. Liga filed the present petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering Liga to pay Ortigas (a non-party) back rentals for January to August 2001.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering Liga to pay Allegro P40,000.00 monthly rental from September 2001.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering Liga to pay attorney’s fees and costs.
RULING
1. Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in ordering payment to Ortigas. The Supreme Court sustained Liga on this issue. Ortigas was not a party to the case. No relief can be granted to a stranger to the action. Allegro did not aver in its complaint that it was acting as Ortigas’s legal representative seeking back rentals, nor was there any allegation or prayer to that effect. A judgment must conform to the pleadings and evidence (secundum allegata et probata).
2. No, the Court of Appeals did not err in ordering payment of P40,000.00 monthly rental to Allegro. The contract (“Rental Information”) is the law between the parties. Liga acquiesced to the P40,000.00 rate by signing the agreement. Allegro’s filing of a “Motion to Release Cash Bond” did not operate as estoppel; it did not constitute a representation that Allegro abandoned its claim for the contracted rental rate.
3. On attorney’s fees and costs, the Supreme Court found the award justified. Liga’s obstinate refusal to pay the stipulated rentals compelled Allegro to litigate. The award of attorney’s fees was proper under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition. The Court of Appeals decision was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION: the portion ordering Liga to pay back rentals to Ortigas for January to August 2001 was DELETED. Liga was ordered to pay Allegro P40,000.00 monthly rental from September 1, 2001, until the property is vacated, subject to deduction for any amounts already paid.