G.R. No. L-10688; April 29, 1957
WILLIAM H. BROWN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and SANTIAGO FREIXAS, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On October 7, 1947, a contract of lease was executed between William H. Brown as lessee and several lessors, including the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) as attorney-in-fact for certain co-owners. The subject was a parcel of land in Manila with the Bataan Theater building for a three-year term beginning November 1, 1949, with a monthly rental of P8,000. The building was completely destroyed by fire in December 1949, and Brown later constructed the Clover Theater on the premises. On November 13, 1953, the lessors (including BPI) filed a detainer case (Civil Case No. 28957) against Brown in the Manila municipal court for non-payment of rentals and real estate taxes totaling P96,322 and sought his ejectment. The municipal court ruled in favor of the lessors, and Brown appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila (docketed as Civil Case No. 21291). While that detainer case was pending in the CFI, Brown filed the present action (Civil Case No. 25147) against BPI and its president, Santiago Freixas, seeking P600,000 in damages. Brown alleged that the detainer case was instituted maliciously by BPI and Freixas, who induced the other co-owners to file it; that the complaint falsely claimed the lessors owned the Clover Theater; that BPI refused to settle amicably or enter into a new contract; and that the P8,000 rental was too high. He claimed damages for business loss, impaired credit, physical suffering, mental anguish, and besmirched reputation. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was premature and stated no cause of action. The CFI granted the motion and dismissed the case, prompting Brown’s appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint for damages based on the allegedly malicious filing of the detainer case states a cause of action, or whether such an action is premature while the detainer case is still pending final determination.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, holding that the action for damages was premature. The Court ruled that Brown’s claim of malicious and unjustified institution of the detainer case directly affected the merits of that pending case. A final judgment in favor of the lessors in the detainer case would conclusively establish the validity of their cause of action, thereby negating Brown’s claim of malice. Conversely, sustaining Brown’s theory in the damages case would require prejudging the issue in the still-pending detainer case. Therefore, until the detainer case is finally determined, Brown does not have a present cause of action for damages based on its alleged malicious filing. The complaint was correctly dismissed for failing to state a cause of action. Costs were imposed on the plaintiff-appellant.