Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 350 views

    Florentino V Supervalue PDF

    Uploaded by

    Princess Trisha Joy Uy
    This case involves a dispute between Florentino, the owner of an empanada business, and Supervalue, a corporation that leases commercial spaces in shopping malls. Florentino leased three cart stalls from Supervalue under renewable 4-month contracts. When the contracts expired, Supervalue refused to renew and confiscated Florentino's equipment and security deposit. The court found that while Florentino breached the contracts in minor ways, the penalty of forfeiting the entire security deposit was excessive. The court ordered Supervalue to reimburse Florentino for half the security deposit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Florentino V Supervalue PDF

    Uploaded by

    Princess Trisha Joy Uy
    350 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute between Florentino, the owner of an empanada business, and Supervalue, a corporation that leases commercial spaces in shopping malls. Florentino leased three cart stalls from Supervalue under renewable 4-month contracts. When the contracts expired, Supervalue refused to renew and confiscated Florentino's equipment and security deposit. The court found that while Florentino breached the contracts in minor ways, the penalty of forfeiting the entire security deposit was excessive. The court ordered Supervalue to reimburse Florentino for half the security deposit.

    Original Description:

    Digest for Florentino v Supervalue (ObliCon)

    Original Title

    Florentino v Supervalue.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Florentino, the owner of an empanada business, and Supervalue, a corporation that leases commercial spaces in shopping malls. Florentino leased three cart stalls from Supervalue under renewable 4-month contracts. When the contracts expired, Supervalue refused to renew and confiscated Florentino's equipment and security deposit. The court found that while Florentino breached the contracts in minor ways, the penalty of forfeiting the entire security deposit was excessive. The court ordered Supervalue to reimburse Florentino for half the security deposit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    350 views1 page

    Florentino V Supervalue PDF

    Uploaded by

    Princess Trisha Joy Uy
    This case involves a dispute between Florentino, the owner of an empanada business, and Supervalue, a corporation that leases commercial spaces in shopping malls. Florentino leased three cart stalls from Supervalue under renewable 4-month contracts. When the contracts expired, Supervalue refused to renew and confiscated Florentino's equipment and security deposit. The court found that while Florentino breached the contracts in minor ways, the penalty of forfeiting the entire security deposit was excessive. The court ordered Supervalue to reimburse Florentino for half the security deposit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Florentino

    v. Supervalue
    559 Phil 577 | GR No. 172384 | 12 September 2007 | Chico-Nazario, J.

    When Courts May


    Reduce Penalty

    Princess Trisha Joy Z. Uy | Law 122-Obligations and Contracts | Grp3


    Courts may reduce penalty when the obligation has been partially
    complied with, or when the penalty is unconscionable.


    Facts:

    ! Florentino is the sole proprietor of Empanada Royale, while the respondent is a corporation which
    leases stalls and commercial store spaces in SM.
    ! Both parties executed 3 contracts to lease cart-type stalls in SM, each with a term of 4 months
    renewable upon agreement.
    ! When the contracts expired, the parties renewed.
    ! A month before the renewal expires, PET received 2 letters from RESP. One charges them of violating
    the Contract of Lease by not opening on December 16 and 26 of 1999; Increasing their price without
    consulting the RESP; and frequently closing early because of the lack of supply, which violates the
    terms of the contract. The second letter was to inform the PET that RESP would not be renewing their
    contract.
    ! The RESP confiscated the equipment and personal belongings of the PET found in the stall after the
    contract expired.
    ! PET demanded, through a letter, that the RESP release the equipment and personal belongings and to
    return the security deposit (192k). A month later, the PET sent another letter demanding the same. The
    RESP still refused to comply.
    ! PET filed an action for Specific Performance, Sum of Money and Damages in the RTC.
    ! PET claims that RESP had always verbally represented that the contract would be renewed, and so the
    PET introduced improvements in the store space (200k). PET further avers that RESP refuses to give
    back the security deposit, personal belongings and equipment without reason even after repeated
    demands. PET prays for actual, moral and exemplary damages plus attorneys fees.
    ! RESP reiterated that PET violated their contract and is also liable for electricity and water bills and
    claims that the confiscation of the items was in the exercise of its retaining lien because PET failed to
    settle obligations.
    ! RTC found for petitioner. CA modified, and found that RESP was justified in forfeiting the security
    deposit.

    Issue/Ratio:
    WON PET is entitiled to get back her security deposit. YES, but only half.

    Section 18. TERMINATION. Any breach, non-performance or non- observance of the terms and
    conditions herein provided shall constitute default which shall be sufficient ground to terminate this
    lease, its extension or renewal. In which event, the LESSOR shall demand that LESSEE immediately
    vacate the premises, and LESSOR shall forfeit in its favor the deposit tendered without prejudice to any
    such other appropriate action as may be legally authorized.

    ! This is a penal clause.


    ! Penal clause accessory undertaiking to assume greater liability in case of breach. It is placed in the
    terms to insure performance, provide for liquidated damages and strengthen coercive force.
    ! Courts may reduce penalty in two instances: (1) if the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly
    complied with; and (1) even if there has been no compliance if the penalty is iniquitous or
    unconscionable.
    ! The forfeiture of the security deposit, in this case, is excessive since the breaches were not of such
    degree that the respondent was unduly prejudiced. RESP should reimburse half of the deposit.
    ! It has been a practice that lessees improve the leased spaces, no misrepresentation from the lessor
    induced the lessee from doing as such. To be entitled to reimbursement for improvements, Art. 1678
    should be read together with 448 and 546, the PET must be considered a builder in good faith. A
    builder in good faith is one who is unaware of any flaw in his title to the land, in this case, this is not
    true, the PET knows she was only a lessee.

    You might also like