The Supreme Court ruled that a lessee cannot unilaterally terminate a lease agreement due to financial difficulties, even if those difficulties arose from a major economic crisis. The principle of rebus sic stantibus, which allows for contract termination when unforeseen events make performance extremely difficult, does not apply to situations where the obligation is to pay money, as this does not constitute an impossible service. This decision reinforces the stability of contractual obligations and clarifies the limited circumstances under which parties can be excused from fulfilling their agreements due to economic hardship.

Can Economic Downturn Justify Breaking a Lease? Examining the Limits of Contractual Obligations

This case revolves around a lease agreement between Comglasco Corporation (Comglasco), a company selling and repairing automobile windshields, and Santos Car Check Center Corporation (Santos), the owner of a showroom in Iloilo City. Comglasco leased Santos’s showroom for five years, starting August 16, 2000. However, on October 4, 2001, Comglasco informed Santos that it would be terminating the lease effective December 1, 2001, citing business reverses allegedly caused by the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

Santos refused to accept the pre-termination, insisting on the five-year contract term. Comglasco vacated the premises on January 15, 2002, ceasing all rental payments. Santos then filed a lawsuit for breach of contract. Comglasco argued that Article 1267 of the Civil Code, embodying the principle of rebus sic stantibus, excused them from their obligations due to the economic downturn making the service (rental payments) excessively difficult. The trial court ruled in favor of Santos, ordering Comglasco to pay unpaid rentals, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision but reduced the attorney’s fees and removed the awards for litigation expenses and exemplary damages.

The Supreme Court (SC) addressed whether the Asian financial crisis justified Comglasco’s pre-termination of the lease and whether the lower courts correctly applied the principle of rebus sic stantibus. The SC also considered whether the trial court properly rendered a judgment on the pleadings and whether Comglasco was entitled to a credit for advance rentals and deposits.

The Supreme Court denied Comglasco’s petition, upholding the CA’s decision that the economic downturn did not excuse Comglasco from fulfilling its obligations under the lease agreement. The Court relied on the precedent set in Philippine National Construction Corporation v. CA, which similarly involved the termination of a lease due to financial difficulties. The SC emphasized that the obligation to pay rentals falls under the prestation “to give” and is not covered by Article 1267 of the Civil Code, which applies to prestations “to do” where the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties.

The SC held that the principle of rebus sic stantibus is not an absolute application and does not automatically release parties from their contractual obligations. The Court stated that parties are presumed to have assumed the risks of unfavorable developments. In this case, Comglasco entered into the lease agreement in August 2000, more than three years after the onset of the Asian financial crisis, indicating that it was aware of the potential business risks.

Furthermore, the Court found that Comglasco’s Answer admitted the material allegations of Santos’s complaint, including the existence and validity of the lease agreement, the agreed-upon rental amounts, and Comglasco’s pre-termination of the lease. As such, the trial court properly resorted to a judgment on the pleadings. Comglasco could have moved for a summary judgment to adduce supporting evidence, but they did not, leading to the court’s decision based solely on the pleadings.

The Supreme Court addressed Comglasco’s claim for credit for advance rentals and deposits, stating that this issue was not raised in their Answer or appeal to the CA. Therefore, they were barred from raising it for the first time before the SC. As for attorney’s fees, the Court upheld the CA’s award, citing Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code, which allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees when the defendant’s act or omission compels the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect their interest. Comglasco’s unilateral pre-termination of the lease and refusal to pay rentals forced Santos to file a lawsuit, justifying the award of attorney’s fees.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Comglasco could pre-terminate its lease agreement with Santos due to financial difficulties arising from the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The court examined the applicability of Article 1267 of the Civil Code regarding unforeseen events.
What is the principle of rebus sic stantibus?	Rebus sic stantibus is a doctrine that allows for the termination of a contract when unforeseen events make performance extremely difficult or virtually impossible. However, this principle is not absolute and applies only in exceptional circumstances.
Why did the Court rule against Comglasco’s claim?	The Court ruled against Comglasco because the obligation to pay rentals is a prestation “to give” and not covered by Article 1267, which applies to prestations “to do”. Furthermore, Comglasco entered the lease agreement after the onset of the financial crisis, assuming the associated risks.
What constitutes a judgment on the pleadings?	A judgment on the pleadings occurs when the answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. In this case, Comglasco’s answer admitted the key elements of Santos’s complaint.
What is the significance of the PNCC v. CA case?	The PNCC v. CA case set a precedent that financial difficulties do not automatically release a party from their contractual obligations, particularly in lease agreements. This precedent was instrumental in the Court’s decision in the Comglasco case.
Can a lessee terminate a lease due to financial hardship?	Generally, no. Financial hardship is not a valid legal excuse for terminating a lease agreement unless explicitly provided for in the contract. Lessees are expected to anticipate and manage business risks.
What is the relevance of Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code?	Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code justifies the award of attorney’s fees when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect their interest. Comglasco’s breach of contract forced Santos to sue, warranting the attorney’s fees.
What should businesses learn from this case?	Businesses should understand that contractual obligations are binding and that economic downturns are not automatic excuses for non-performance. They should carefully assess risks before entering into agreements and include clauses addressing potential economic challenges.

This case underscores the importance of honoring contractual obligations, even in the face of economic hardship. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that parties are expected to foresee and manage business risks, and that the rebus sic stantibus doctrine is not a blanket excuse for non-performance. The ruling serves as a reminder that sound legal advice and careful contract drafting are essential for protecting business interests and ensuring compliance with legal standards.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: COMGLASCO CORPORATION/AGUILA GLASS VS. SANTOS CAR CHECK CENTER CORPORATION, G.R. No. 202989, March 25, 2015