"The plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a lease agreement (Exhibit "A"), commencing on 01 June 1973 and ending on 31 May 1983, with a provision that the 'period of this lease may be extended for another period of five (5) years subject only to re-negotiation of rentals, which re-negotiations should start not less than six (6) months prior to the termination of the original period of this lease,’ (par. 1, Exhibit "A"). ScslxÓ

The lease contract covers the Marian Hospital and four Schools, consisting of four buildings, a 10-storey concrete building, a 9-storey concrete building, a 3-storey building and one called Soledad Building, including the land on which they stand, as well as facilities, furnitures, fixtures and equipments, listed in Annexes "A" and "B" attached to the Lease Agreement (Exh. "A"). Excepted from this lease is a certain portion of the Soledad Building used as a clinic of plaintiff Dra. Lourdes F. Mabanta, and another portion at the western end of the building used as a 'bibingka store.' Defendant was to pay a monthly rental of P70,000.00, which became due and payable within the first ten days of every month in advance, except the first rental and the rentals for the last months of April and May 1983, which were due and payable at the time of the execution of the contract of lease.

As early as 1975, problems appear to have arisen from the contractual relations of the parties when, on 27 October 1975, herein defendant, as plaintiff, filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Civil Case No. 99934, against the herein plaintiffs, as defendants in that case, for specific performance with damages, due to alleged violations by the herein plaintiffs of certain provisions of the Lease Agreement (Exh. "A"), specifically for alleged 'condemned' installation, electrical installations and for their failure to present the occupancy permit for the buildings leased,’ (TSN, session of Dec. 17, 1987, p. 13). Mesmä

Subsequent to the filing by herein defendant of Civil Case No. 99934, herein plaintiffs filed with the City Court of Manila, on 18 December 1975 (see page 2, 'Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss’), an ejectment case for unlawful detainer against defendant, docketed as Civil Case No. 006665-CV (see par. 3.3. of Answer).

The principal ground of the ejectment (unlawful detainer) case filed by the herein plaintiffs against the herein defendant was for the alleged non-payment of rentals on the lease properties, beginning November 1975, because the defendant suspended the payments thereof (see Annex "B" to the Complaint). CalrkyÓ

After trial by the City Court of Manila of Civil Case No. 006665-CV, the case was dismissed and the decision of the City Court rendered on 10 August 1980, was appealed to the Court of First Instance, and therein docketed as Civil Case No. 135396, and assigned to Hon. Tomas Maddela, Judge Presiding. Also, Civil Case No. 99934, for specific performance with damages, was tried by Judge Maddela, and he rendered a decision, on the same day he rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 135396, against the herein plaintiffs and in favor of herein defendant, directing herein plaintiffs to pay herein defendant some P663,153.49 in damages. This decision is now pending appeal (see par. 3.5, Answer).

The Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC, for short), rendered on 21 April 1983 a decision in Civil Case No. 135396, affirming in toto the decision of the City Court in Civil Case No. 006665-CV. The decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 135396, affirming in toto the appealed decision of the City Court in Civil Case No. 006665-CV, was appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC, for short), docketed as AC-G.R. SP. No. 00994, which rendered a decision on 28 February 1985, (Annex "B" to the Complaint), and Amplified/Amended by its Resolution of 18 July 1985, (Annex "B-1" of the Complaint), reversing the decision in Civil Case No. 135396, with the finding that the respondent RTC erred in affirming the decision of the City Court dismissing petitioners’ (herein plaintiffs) complaint of ejectment; that, there being violations made by respondent (herein defendant) of the lease agreement as proven by the evidence submitted by the petitioners, and private respondent’s efforts to justify such violations not being sufficient so as to negate the payment of rental, respondent court should have reversed the City Court’s decision and should have ordered the respondent to vacate the premises (p. 13 of Annex "B" to the Complaint). The IAC subsequently directed the herein defendant to pay to herein plaintiffs rentals from November 1975 to 31 May 1983, less rentals that were deposited and withdrawn by herein plaintiffs, and directing defendant to vacate the leased properties including the fixtures, supplies and equipments listed in Annex "A" (other than the property ceded to the Development Bank of the Philippines in the 'dacion en pago') more particularly but is now occupied by Juanchito’s restaurant and the passage way of the premises still owned by petitioners.’ (pp. 3-4, Annex "B-1" to Complaint). Kycalrâ

The decision and resolution were the subject of a petition for review by herein defendant filed with the Supreme Court on 07 August 1985.* [The case was Docketed as G.R. No. 71579 (University Physicians Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.). In a Resolution dated September 10, 1986, the Court’s Second Division resolved to deny the petition for lack of merit. The motion for reconsideration filed by the counsel for petitioner University Physicians, Inc. was likewise denied for lack of merit and the denial was made final. On January 14, 1987, said decision became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.]

x x x x x x

Meanwhile, that the cases were filed by and against one another (of one parties), the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP, for short), acquired, thru a 'dacion en pago' the ownership of two of the four buildings leased to defendant, while plaintiff Lourdes Mabanta continue to own the other two buildings – the 3-storey building and the Soledad Bldg. (see par. 3-7, Answer). Defendant continued to occupy, under lease, the two buildings ceded to DBP. Kyleä

While the Lease Agreement (Exh. "A"), 'may be extended for another period five (5) years, subject only to re-negotiation of rentals, which re-negotiation should start not less than six (6) months prior to the termination of the original period of this lease,' no such renegotiations were ever made 'on account of the fact that the relationship between the parties was already strained at that point in time as a result of the cases which each has filed against the other' (see par. 3-11, Answer).

Nonetheless, on 12 May 1983, defendant delivered a letter, dated 01 May 1983 (Exh. "1"), addressed to Plaintiff Dra. Lourdes F. Mabanta, informing the latter that it (defendant) is exercising its option to extend the lease for another period of five years and that it is willing and ready to negotiate the rentals (despite the fact that, in view of the previous position you have taken on the matter, the re-negotiation would/may be a futile exercise)'. This letter also warns plaintiffs that 'should you however refuse to negotiate, we will be constrained to request the court to fix the rentals of the extended period.'

This letter (Exh. "1") was answered by plaintiffs, through their lawyer, with a letter dated 16 May 1983, stating, inter alia, that since there were no renegotiations on the rentals which should have started 'not less than six (6) months prior to the termination of the original period, there are no rights which have arisen thereunder' (see Exh. "2"). ExÓ sm

The defendant insisted on its right to extend as shown by its letters marked Exhibits "3" and "4".

It has also been well-established, by preponderance of evidence that:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering defendant to pay: EsmmÓ is

1. to the plaintiffs the sum of P30,000.00 as reasonable compensation for defendant’s use of the hospital and school equipments, fixtures, furnitures, facilities and supplies owned by plaintiffs, or in the event of its inability to return the properties or some of them, to replace them in the same quantity and quality, as it received them, pursuant to par. 8(e), of Exh. "A";

2. to the plaintiff Lourdes Mabanta, the sum of P2,000.00 a month, with legal interest thereon, as the reasonable compensation for defendant’s use and enjoyment of the passage way, commencing 01 June 1983 until the said passage way is actually and completely surrendered/delivered to plaintiff Lourdes Mabanta;

3. to the plaintiff Lourdes Mabanta, the sum of P5,000.00 a month, with legal interest thereon, as the reasonable monthly compensation for defendant’s occupation and use of the Juanchito Restaurant, commencing from 01 June 1983 until 31 March 1987;

4. to the plaintiff Dra. Lourdes Mabanta the sum of P200.000.00, as and for moral damages; Esâ msc

5. to the plaintiffs, the sum of P200,000.00, as and for exemplary damages;

6. to the plaintiffs, the sum of P50,000.00, as and for attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and

7. the costs of this suit.

All other claims of plaintiffs and the defendant against each other are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."5 [Rollo, pp. 94-95.]

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER PENDING CASES BETWEEN THE PARTIES CONSTITUTE A BAR TO THE INSTANT COMPLAINT UNDER THE RULE ON LITIS PENDENCIA.

2. WHETHER OR NOT, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT, PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF THE LEASE.

3. WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES CONSISTING OF REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF THE PASSAGEWAY, THE JUANCHITO’S RESTURANT, AND THE FIXTURES, FACILITIES, SUPPLIES, ETC. IF SO, WHETHER OR NOT THE AMOUNT OF "REASONABLE COMPENSATION" CAN BE UNILATERALLY DICTATED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. Jksmä â Ó

"x x x a cursory examination of the causes of action in the different cases enumerated by the defendant in its motion, viewed from the purposes of the actions, would readily show that the other cases referred to, as pending between the parties involved causes of action very much different from the causes of action in the present case. As can be gleaned from defendant’s motion to dismiss, amplified by plaintiff’s opposition to said motion, the first case (Civil Case No. 99934) filed by University Physicians Services, Inc., hereafter referred to as UPSI for brevity, is for specific performance, whereby UPSI seeks the delivery of Marian Clinics, Inc. and Lourdes Mabanta, Certificates of Occupancy and the payment of damages arising form the non-delivery of the certificates. The second case (specified by plaintiffs in their opposition as Civil Case No. 006665-CV) filed by Marian Clinics and Lourdes Mabanta, seeks the ejectment of UPSI from the leased premises, on grounds of breach of the terms of the lease. And the third case (Civil Case No. 83-21275, filed by Lourdes Mabanta, assisted by her administrator), seeks the restoration of water supply in Lourdes Mabanta’s premises, with injunction and damages.

The instant action has for its subject the recovery of reasonable compensation for defendant’s use of certain leased properties of the plaintiffs Marian Clinics, Inc. and Lourdes Mabanta, from June 1, 1983 to the present, and also for damages allegedly suffered by plaintiff Lourdes Mabanta by reason of the alleged destruction by defendant of the steel gate shutter of plaintiffs’ property. Sjcj

From these, the Court cannot see how the two causes of action in the present complaint in the case at bar can be the same with the causes of action of the three pending cases cited by defendants.

x x x x x x

x x x, on the identity of rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for: This Court had shown the difference in rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for in the three other cases, Civil Cases Nos. 99934, 0066634-CV and 83-21275 and in the case at bar. x x x x x x Let it, however, be emphasized that the three cases and the one at bar are founded on different facts, different sets of alleged violations of the rights constituting causes of action in the three cases, are entirely different in the case at bar. Supreme

Third, x x x; a judgment rendered in three cases cannot be res judicata in the case at bar because x x x the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for in the instant case are entirely different, separate and distinct from the rights asserted and the reliefs demanded in the three other cases.

In fine, there is no res judicata to justify the dismissal of the case at bar." (Emphasis Ours)14 [CA Decision, p. 9-12; Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 60-63.]

"x x x, the established rule is that for forum-shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions; same essential facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. In this regard, forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Court

Accordingly, the requisites of litis pendencia not having concurred, private respondent cannot be held guilty of forum-shopping."

"1. The LESSEE shall have the exclusive right to possess, use, run, manage and operate, as its own business (es), the LEASED ASSETS at its present location for a period of ten (10) years starting on June 1, 1973 up to and including May 31, 1983. The period of this lease may be extended for another period of five (5) years, subject only to re-negotiation of rentals, which re-negotiation should start not less than six (6) months prior to the termination of the original period of this lease."

"The parties agree that any violation or breach of any of the conditions in the [is] Contract by any of the parties shall entitle the other either (a) to terminate the same immediately; or (b) to enforce the performance of the same, with right of damages, in either case in accordance with law. It is further agreed that should the LESSEE be the one to violate or breach any of the conditions of this contract and the LESSORS may required (sic) the LESSEE or any one occupying the premises under it to vacate the premises immediately without the obligation to reduce or return any amount already received. x x x." Lexjuris

"Thus, this Court has held that as in statutes, the provisions of a contract should not be read in isolation from the rest of the instrument but, on the contrary, interpreted in the light of the other related provisions. The whole and every part of a contract must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. Equally applicable is the cannon of construction that in interpreting a statute (or a contract as in this case), care should be taken that every part thereof be given effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. The rule is that a construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided; instead, apparently inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a coordinated and harmonious whole."20 [Ibid., pp. 40-41.] justice

"On the purely linguistic level, we note that the important, operative word in the contract clause in both Koh and Cruz was "extendible"; in the case at bar, the contract used the term "renewable". In Koh, the Court has in effect looking at the word "extendible" standing alone: Mr. Justice Torres found that the phrase "at the will of both parties" had been unilaterally inserted by a stranger to the contract – the lessor’s caretaker of the property involved – without the consent of the lessee; the phrase therefore could be disregarded. In Cruz, Mr. Justice Street felt compelled by what may well be too mechanical a rendering into English of the past particle form in Spanish to read "convenidos por ambas partes" as referring to a previous agreement contemporaneous with execution of the contract to grant the lessee a unilateral option to continue with the lease beyond the original term; in any event Mr. Justice Street treated the phrase as a superfluity. In the case at bar, "renewable" does not stand alone: as noted earlier, it is qualified and amplified by two phrases, the one stressing that the option to renew was not unilateral but mutual, and the other emphasizing the need for future agreement between lessor and lessee on the detailed terms and conditions of renewal. Edpä sc

As a matter of dictionary meaning, "extendible" means "capable of extension", and "renewable" means "capable of renewal"; both are oriented towards the future. It may be seen that both "extendible" and "renewable", when considered in and of themselves, are non-committal: they do not purport to answer the intensely practical question of who is vested-lessor or lessee or both acting together-with the option to extend or renew a lease. Again, neither term by itself pre-empts the question of what the specific terms and conditions of the extended or renewed lease shall be: shall all terms and provisions of the old lease be carried forward into the future, or shall all or some of them be renegotiated upon expiration of the old lease. Thus, both Koh and Cruz seem to impose an impossible burden upon single words. Put a little differently, both Mr. Justice Torres and Mr. Justice Street read too much into a single word: they read "extendible" as if it said "extendible at the option of the lessee alone, all other terms and conditions remaining unchanged". In effect, Koh and Cruz treated "extendible" as a highly technical and cryptic term. Edâ p

We do not believe that the use of either "extendible" or "renewable" should be given sacramental significance. The important task in contract interpretation is always the ascertainment of the intention of the contracting parties and that task is of course to be discharged by looking to the words they used to project that intention in their contract, all the words not just a particular word or two, and words in context not words standing alone. In the case at bar, the intent of the parties is observable with sufficient clarity and specificity in the language they used.

It is also important to bear in mind that in a reciprocal contract like a lease, the period of the lease must be deemed to have been agreed upon for the benefit of both parties, absent language showing that the term was deliberately set for the benefit of the lessee or lessor alone. We are not aware of any presumption in law that the term of a lease is designed for the benefit of the lessee alone. Koh and Cruz in effect rested upon such a presumption. But that presumption cannot reasonably be indulged in casually in an era of rapid economic change, marked by, among other things, volatile costs of living and fluctuations in the value of the domestic currency. The longer the period the more clearly unreasonable such a presumption would be. In an age like that we live in, very specific language is necessary to show an intent to grant a unilateral faculty to extend or renew a contract of lease to the lessee alone, or to the lessor alone for that matter. We hold that the above-quoted rulings in Koh v. Ongsiaco and Cruz v. Alberto should be and are overruled."28 [Ibid., 582-587.] (Emphasis Ours) Miä sedp

"x x x, We cannot agree with appellant that the lower court erred in awarding damages insofar as the P2,000 monthly rental for the use of the passage way commencing on June 1, 1983 until appellant surrenders possession of the same to appellees; the P5,000 monthly rental for the Juanchito Restaurant of the appellant from June 1, 1983 to March 31, 1987; the P30,000 monthly rental for the use of the hospital facilities, furnitures, fixtures and supplies including the operation of four schools commencing on June 1, 1983 up to the time appellant turns over possession of the same to appellees; and the P5,000 for the destruction of the steel gate of the premises in question. All these is (sic) supported by evidence by appellees. As correctly found by the lower court, appellant has not presented any contrary evidence to dispute said amount of damages. Clearly, appellant has not come up with the required burden of proof as to the alleged contract amount of damages (Sec. 1, Ruled 131 of the Revised Rules of Evidence of 1989). In fact, up to the instant appeal, appellant has not presented the alternative figures for these damages.

There is also no question that appellees were compelled to litigate due to the adamant refusal of appellant to satisfy their valid demand, for which the lower court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees (Art. 2208 (5) & (11), New Civil Code)." [Emphasis Ours]29 [Court of Appeals Decision dated November 26, 1993, p. 15; Rollo, p. 66.] Calrspä ped

"Finally, petitioner submits that the award of monthly rental of P5,000.00 as fixed by the Regional Trial Court and affirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals, is excessive, exorbitant and unreasonable. We disagree. On the contrary, the records bear out that the P5,000.00 monthly rental is a reasonable amount, considering that the subject lot is a prime commercial real property whose value has significantly increased and that P5,000.00 is within the range of prevailing rental rates in that vicinity. Moreover, petitioner has not proffered controverting evidence to support what he believes to be the fair rental value of the leased building since the burden of proof to show that the rental demanded is unconscionable or exorbitant rests upon the lessee. Thus, here and now we rule, as we did in the case of Manila Bay Club v. Court of Appeals,32 [245 SCRA 715 (1995).] that petitioner having failed to prove its claim of excessive rentals, the valuation made by the Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals, stands. Edpâ mis

"It is worth stressing at this juncture that the trial court had the authority to fix the reasonable value for the continued use and occupancy of the leased premises after the termination of the lease contract, and that it was not bound by the stipulated rental in the contract of lease since it is equally settled that upon termination or expiration of the contract of lease, the rental stipulated therein may no longer be the reasonable value for the use and occupation of the premises as a result or by reason of the change or rise in values. Moreover, the trial court can take judicial notice of the general increase in rentals of real estate specially of business establishments x x x." (emphasis Ours)