Florentino v. Supervalue Inc.
Selling a variety of empanada as such
Issue: Reduction by
Courts
Doctrine:
A penal clause is an accessory undertaking to
assume greater liability in case of breach.
Function: (1) to provide for liquidated damages,
and (2) to strengthen the coercive force of the
obligation by the threat of greater responsibility
in the event of breach.
General Rule: courts are not at liberty to ignore
the freedoms of the parties to agree on such
terms and conditions
Exception: (1) if the principal obligation has been
partly or irregularly complied with; and (2) even
if there has been no compliance if the penalty is
iniquitous or unconscionable (ART 1229)
Facts:
Petitioner is engaged in the retail of
empanada; Respondent is engaged in the
leasing of stalls and stores within SM
Parties entered into a lease Agreement with
renewal upon agreement
Respondent submits 2 letters to Petitioner first
letter stating the latters failure to accord to the
contract for:
1.
increasing price without her consent P20 to
P22
2. Petitioner frequently close stores earlier
than mall closing time for delay of delivery
of stocks to her store
In 2nd letter the respondent informed upon
lease expiration on March 31 2000 no longer to
extend the lease agreement
Upon expiration, Respondent also took
possession of equipment and personal
belonging of Petitioner from SM store as well
as security deposits of P192000 as provided in
Lease Agreement upon breach
Petitioner filed case for Sum of Money and
Damages; RTC ruled in favor of Petitioner that
forfeiture of security deposit w/o consent is
illegal however CA modified decision that the
forfeiture of security deposit was valid on
account of petitioner breach in agreement
ISSUE: WON the penalty of forfeiture of security
deposit on account of breach should be reduced by
Court
Ruling: YES
1. Question of whether a penalty is reasonable or
iniquitous can be partly subjective and partly
objective. Factors include: type, extent and
purpose of the penalty, the nature of the
obligation, the mode of breach and its
consequences, the supervening realities, the
standing and relationship of the parties, and
the like
2. Forfeiture of the entire amount of the security
deposits in the sum of P192,000.00 was
excessive and unconscionable considering that
 the gravity of the breaches committed by the respondent is therefore under the obligation to
petitioner is not of such degree return the 50% of P192,000.00 to the
3. It is in the exercise of its sound discretion that petitioner.
this court tempered the penalty to 50%. The