Pasricha v. Don Luis Realty, Inc., G.R. No.

136409, 14 March 2008

DOCTRINE
An action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals should be made due
to conflicting claims on the property (or on the right to collect). The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against
double liability but to protect him against double vexation in respect of one liability.

FACTS
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the ROC seeking the reversal of the Decision of the CA and
its Resolution in the civil case which dismissed the petition filed by Spouses Pasricha. Petitioners Sps. Pasricha and
Respondents Don Luis Dison Realty executed a Contract of Lease whereby the latter leased 9 units to the former,
each of which is subject to separate contracts. While the contracts were in effect, the Spouses dealt with Francisco
Pacheco, then GM of the respondent. He was replaced by Roswinda Bautista. Petitioners religiously paid the monthly
rentals until May 1992. Upon demand, they refused to pay the rent and so a Complaint for ejectment was filed against
them by Ms. Bautista before the MeTC of Manila. Petitioners admitted their failure to pay the rent but claimed that
their refusal was justified because of the internal squabble in the company as to the person authorized to receive
payment. They also averred that they were prevented from using the units subject of the lease contract, except for
one.

The MeTC dismissed the complaint for ejectment on the ground that Ms. Bautista's alleged lack of authority to sue on
behalf of the corporation. However, it considered the reasons of the spouses unjustified, holding that mere willingness
to pay the rent did not amount to payment of the obligation, and that petitioners should have deposited their payment
in the name of the respondent company. On Appeal, the RTC of Manila reversed and set aside the MeTC decision. It
upheld Ms. Bautista's authority to represent the company since her authority was implied from her power as a
General Manager/Treasurer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision and likewise denied the Motion for
reconsideration subsequently filed for lack of merit. It granted the motion for execution and directed the RTC to issue
a new writ of execution.

ISSUE
Whether the petitioners may be validly ejected from the leased premises

HELD
YES.
What is clearly established by the evidence was petitioners' non-payment of rentals because ostensibly they did not
know to whom payment should be made. However, this does not justify their failure to pay, because if such were the
case, they were not without any remedy. They should have availed of the Article 1256 of the Civil Code on the
consignation of payment and of the Rules of Court on interpleader.

In this case, consignation alone would have produced the effect of payment of rentrals. Consignation shall be made
by depositing the things due at the disposal of a judicial authority, before whom the tender of payment shall be proved
in a proper case, and the announcement of the consignation in other cases. The rationale for consignation is to avoid
the performance of an obligation becoming more onerous to the debtor by reason of causes not imputable to him.

Sec. 1, Rule 62 of the ROC which is an action for interpleader is proper when the lessess does not know to whom
payment of rentals should be made to conflicting claims on the property (or on the right to collect). The remedy is
afforded not to protect a person against double liability but to protect him against double vexation in respect of one
liability. Moreover, Article 1673 of the Civil Code gives the lessor the right to judicially eject the lessees in case of
non-payment of the monthly rentals.