[DISTINGUISHED FROM CONTRACT-TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
DCSI acceded to So’s
CONTRACT]
21 SO PING BUN V. COURT OF APPEALS
September 21, 1999 | Quisimbing, J. |
Doctrine:
 Although a third person is receiving benefits at the expense of the
detriment of the contracting party, lack of malice precludes damages. But
it does not relieve petitioner of the legal liability for entering into contracts
and causing breach of existing ones.
Facts:
● 1963: Tek Hua Trading Co (through Managing Partner So Pek Giok)
entered into 4 lease agreements with lessor Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc.
(DCSI) for locations along Soler St. Binondo Manila
○ Tek Hua used the area to store its textiles
○ 1-year term
○ Should Tek Hua continue to occupy the premises after the term,
the lease shall be on a month-to-month basis
○ When the contracts expired, the parties did not renew the
contracts, but Tek Hua continued to occupy the premises
● 1976: Tek Hua Trading was dissolved and original members formed Tek
Hua Enterprising Corp, respondent corp.
● 1986: So Pek Giok died so his grandson So Ping Bun occupied warehouse
for his textile business: Trendsetter Marketing
● August 1989: Lessor DCSI sent letters to Tek Hua Enterprises informing
them of the 25% increase in rent effective September 1, 1989, reduced to
20% (effective January 1 1990), implemented 30% increase (December 1,
1990).
○ Enclosed in letters were new lease contracts for signing
■ Failure of Tek Hua to sign will be considered as lack of
interest, and agreement to lease’s termination
■ TEK HUA DID NOT RESPOND TO ANY LETTER AND
YET, LEASE CONTRACT WAS NOT RESCINDED
● Manuel Tiong, President of DCSI sent a letter to So Ping Bun (of Tek Hua)
giving So 14 days to vacate the premises since he needs the warehouse for
his textile business, explaining that he only let him stay at the warehouse
out of being business associates with So Ping Bun’s father and
grandfather
○ So Ping Bun REFUSED to vacate and requested formal lease
contracts with DCSI in favor of Trendsetter Marketing claiming
that after the death of his grandfather, he’s been occupying the
premises and religiously paying rent.
request so lease contracts in favor of Trendsetter were
executed.
RTC: Annulling 4 contracts of lease. CASE DISMISSED, So Ping Bun to pay Tek Hua
P500k as atty’s fees
CA: RTC Affirmed, reduced atty’s fees from P500,000 to P200,000
Issue:
W/N So Ping Bun is liable for damages? – YES, but only atty’s fees.
Held:
YES. All elements of tort interference is present but no malice
 The elements of tort interference are:
1. existence of a valid contract (between DCSI and Tek Hua);
2. knowledge on the part of the third person (So
Ping/Trendsetter) of the existence of contract; and
3. interference of the third person is without legal justification or
excuse.

 Authorities debate on whether interference may be
justified when: one acts for the sole purpose of
furthering his own financial or economic interest.
 Not justified when: sole motive is to cause harm to
the other.
Law of torts:
 respect for property of others
 cause of action may be predicated upon an unlawful interference by one
person of the enjoyment by the other of his private property
1. e.g. a 3rd person induces a party to renege on or violate his
undertaking under a contract
In the case before us, Trendsetter Marketing asked DCCSI to execute lease
contracts in its favor, depriving Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. of its property right.
Clearly, and as correctly viewed by the appellate court, the three elements of tort
interference above- mentioned are present in the instant case.
HOWEVER, As early as Gilchrist vs. Cuddy, we held
That where there was no malice in the interference of a contract, and the
impulse behind one’s conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in
wrongful motives, a party cannot be a malicious interferer. Where the alleged
interferer is financially interested, and such interest motivates his conduct, it
cannot be said that he is an officious or malicious intermeddler.
 thousand (P100,000.00) pesos. No pronouncement as to costs.
In the instant case, So Ping Bun prevailed upon DCCSI to lease the warehouse to
his enterprise at the expense of Tek Hua. Though petitioner took interest in the
property of respondent corporation and benefited from it, nothing on record
imputes deliberate wrongful motives or malice on him.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 38784 are hereby
AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION that the award of attorney’s fees is
reduced from two hundred thousand (P200,000.00) to one hundred
SO ORDERED.

Notes
 Damage: loss, hurt, or harm which results from injury
 Damages: compensation awarded for the damage suffered.

Section 1314 of the Civil Code categorically provides also that, “Any third
One becomes liable in an action for damages for a nontrespassory invasion of
person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages
another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of asset if:
to the other contracting party.”
a) the other has property rights and privileges with respect to the use or
enjoyment interfered with,
So Ping Bun argues that lower courts did not award damages so he should be
b) the invasion is substantial,
absolved of any liability:
c) the defendant’s conduct is a legal cause of the invasion, and
 SC: Damages were not awarded because extent of damage was not
quantifiable. d) the invasion is either intentional and unreasonable or unintentional and
actionable under general negligence rules

 While we do not encourage tort interferers seeking their economic

interest to intrude into existing contracts at the expense of others,
however, we find that the conduct herein complained of did not
transcend the limits forbidding an obligatory award for damages in
the absence of any malice.

 The business desire is there to make some gain to the detriment of the
contracting parties. Lack of malice, however, precludes damages. But it
does not relieve petitioner of the legal liability for entering into contracts
and causing breach of existing ones. The respondent appellate court
correctly confirmed the permanent injunction and nullification of the
lease contracts between DCCSI and Trendsetter Marketing, without
awarding damages. The injunction saved the respondents from further
damage or injury caused by petitioner’s interference.

 Atty’s fees reduced from 200k to 100k in light of prevailing jurisprudence

Dispositive