Loss of Business po ba if Paalisin sa Commercial Space without just cause?

Good day po mga lawyers,

I am a part owner of a Small Corporation. We rented a Commercial space here in paranaque. We had a verbal agreement/understanding na pwede "Stay In". So we paid the 1 month advance and two months deposit upfront. No problems.
After moving in, two to three weeks after the said payment, we were told na ayaw na daw ng may-ari na "Residential" yun "Commercial Space"... Naging "Half Commercial/Half Residential" kasi ang ginawa namin. Which is to our thinking eh pwede naman sya since meron namang gumagawa nun sa mga commercial space nila.

We would like to know if "Loss of Business" ang pwede namin idemanda sa kanila...

Or kung may case ba kami?

*(Pls note: Wala sa Contract na d pwede or exclusive lang as a commercial Space at d din pirmado yun contract pero gusto nila palabasin na Exclusive at we are in breach of contract)

Theoretics wrote:We had a verbal agreement/understanding na pwede "Stay In".  So we paid the 1 month advance and two months deposit upfront.  No problems.

Well. Even with a case, you have big problem to prove it. That's why make WRITTEN contracts to reduce risks for problems.

I don't know if the Barangay Captain take such case. Try that.
If not, I would give up, if the other don't admit he did wrong, and if you don't have proper proves, because you will probably lose.
If you want to go one step further, then you can file a case at Small claims court, such don't cost much,
but if you go to normal court, then it will cost much, and you will probably lose.

Hi, Thank you for your reply.

I have their "supposed contract" that they wanted us to sign when they told us they changed their mind (after two-three weeks).  We also have bank records that they accepted our cheque payments.  And we want them to pay for our "losses" or whatever the lawyers would deem fit.

Also the contract says "The leased premises shall be exclusively used for the operation of OUR Corporation..."

Didnt they fail to Deliver the Leased Premises?

Thanks again...

Also since they failed to deliver the Leased Premises, shouldn't they return the payments? They want to keep the 1 month which to my guess is "intent?" and they renegotiated a verbal understanding/agreement to keep the 1 month payment.. Please correct me if im wrong.

Lunkan wrote:

Theoretics wrote:We had a verbal agreement/understanding na pwede "Stay In".  So we paid the 1 month advance and two months deposit upfront.  No problems.

Well. Even with a case, you have big problem to prove it. That's why make WRITTEN contracts to reduce risks for problems.

I don't know if the Barangay Captain take such case. Try that.
If not, I would give up, if the other don't admit he did wrong, and if you don't have proper proves, because you will probably lose.
If you want to go one step further, then you can file a case at Small claims court, such don't cost much,
but if you go to normal court, then it will cost much, and you will probably lose.

Yes, they failed to deliver, but a main question is what you can make the BC/court agree to.

The payments are proves you HAVE paid, but perhaps not clear for what.

Have they signed to "suppoused contract" ?
Or can you prove it come from them?
If so you have some rather strong proof.
If you have any strong evidience then you can go to Small claims court,
if weak, then go Barangay Captain.

I don't remember if Small claims court is max 100 000 or max 200 000.

List all you think you have lost, you can ask for compensation for work too, but then it's left to see what BC/Small claims court decide.

MY decision is they don't have right to keep anything at all,
in OPPOSITE you have right to MORE than the money back for them wasting you time, but I'm not the judge.

Thank you.

They did sign the contract. We didn't (because it was too early to sign it).. We have a copy of the original contract with original signature.

We don't want to get rich of our claims. It is a matter of principle and It does cause a lot of stress/ financial losses on our part.

We hope the lawyers can decide on what the losses are..

Ofcourse, I'm only basing my knowledge on watching lawyers on tv shows I'm hoping they also get to pay for the lawyers as part of the losses they are putting us in.

Thanks so much Lunkan.

Theoretics wrote: They did sign the contract.  We didn't (because it was too early to sign it)..

Good they have signed,
BUT Oh you haven't signed can be a BIGER DISADVANTAGE for you, because "to early" is NOT a reason to not sign,
when it's after the start, because contracts are suppoused to be signed BEFORE starts.
You not signing before start, can be seen as YOU made the contract NOT VALID, even as YOU BROKE the verbal agreement...

Theoretics wrote:
We have a copy of the original contract with original signature.

We don't want to get rich of our claims. It is a matter of principle and It does cause a lot of stress/ financial losses on our part.  

I didn't ment get rich, but to be compensated for your costs ans your wasted work.

Theoretics wrote:
We hope the lawyers can decide on what the losses are..

Ofcourse, I'm only basing my knowledge on watching lawyers on tv shows I'm hoping they also get to pay for the lawyers as part of the losses they are putting us in.

Well. DON'T expect the opponents will pay your lawyer. That's when winning in NORMAL COURT.
Even in Small claims court NO lawyer costs are compensated, because such cases are suppoused to be handled WITHOUT lawyers.

Just for the interest of discussion...

We found the commercial space in October, we paid 1month deposit and 2 months advance. Made some renovations, and moved in November 17. We got the supposed contract on dec 10.. (and yes we asked for the contract weeks before dec10)
They presented the contract and told us we were in breach (if we didnt even sign it, and there were no provisions that the Commercial Space cannot be used as Residential also, that cant be a breach, right?) would the Verbal agreement/understanding we had "Pwedeng Stay-in" at the very beginning of our transaction carry any weight?

Im confused, we didn't break the verbal agreement because both parties agreed on the "StayIN"...

Also thanks for the info about lawyers in small claims court. We wont be bringing any lawyer then.

We will be going to file a complaint very soon.

Theoretics wrote:Just for the interest of discussion...

We found the commercial space in October, we paid 1month deposit and 2 months advance. Made some renovations, and moved in November 17. We got the supposed contract on dec 10..  (and yes we asked for the contract weeks before dec10)
They presented the contract and told us we were in breach  (if we didnt even sign it, and there were no provisions that the Commercial Space cannot be used as Residential also, that cant be a breach, right?)

Oh you got the contract suggestion AFTER you have entered and paid !!! haha
It's GOOD for you, you got it that late, because it's reasonable you get some time to check it.

What reason do they say to you breaking it??

Theoretics wrote:
would the Verbal agreement/understanding we had "Pwedeng Stay-in"

What do "Pwedeng Stay-in" mean? Meaning not allowed to live there?
If so - Do the CONTRACT say
Comersial
or BOTH Comersial and living
in the part you rent?

Theoretics wrote:
at the very beginning of our transaction carry any weight?

Everything done both agreements and paying add some

Theoretics wrote:
Im confused, we didn't break the verbal agreement because both parties agreed on the "StayIN"...

Now I got confused too
Is it the Comersial or the Residental part which you find THEM breaking???

Theoretics wrote:
Also thanks for the info about lawyers in small claims court.  We wont be bringing any lawyer then..

It's same at Barangay Captain.

Theoretics wrote:
We will be going to file a complaint very soon.

Parts of this post of yours made me confused if you have a case

The contract states "The LEASED PREMISES" shall be exclusively used for the operation of XYZ corporation only and for no other purpose except with the written consent of the LESSOR for the change of use by the LESSEE and shall not be subleased to anyone.

The LESSESS should follow the LESSOR's construction guidelines and strictly requires the LESSEE to submit plans for electrical plumbing and mechanical for approval before work should be started.

-------------

pero in this case, absence of a proper contract eto dba? No meeting of the minds and not in public documents... So we have to base it on the verbal agreement...

???

Thanks so much for your time and expertise .

Further clarification:
We asked and asked kung pwede "Stay IN" dito... they said yes, pwede kami mag"STAY IN"... With other inquiries sa other Commercial Spaces we asked around.
"STAY IN" did mean we get to sleep there.

The verbal agreement is "STAY-IN" which should mean we get to also live sa commercial space. please correct me if im wrong.

Having people live in commercial spaces is common, right?

The contract doesnt say exclusively for commercial use or it doesnt prohibit the residential use only.

The landlady wanted to twist the meaning around... in the Previous post is the Article 3. Use of Premises...
it says "exclusively used for the operation of XYZ Corp only and for no other purpose"
The landlady was try to trick us that "exclusive" means no Residential...

Theoretics wrote:The contract states "The LEASED PREMISES" shall be exclusively used for the operation of XYZ corporation only and for no other purpose except with the written consent of the LESSOR for the change of use by the LESSEE and shall not be subleased to anyone.

The LESSESS should follow the LESSOR's construction guidelines and strictly requires the LESSEE to submit plans for electrical plumbing and mechanical for approval before work should be started.

That don't say if your business will have it for doing business,
or if it's ok to have owner or employee living there too.

Theoretics wrote:
pero in this case, absence of a proper contract eto dba? No meeting of the minds and not in public documents... So we have to base it on the verbal agreement...

???

Well. Verbal agreements are valid,
BUT very hard to prove if the other part say different.

Perhaps it will be INTERPRETED as the suggested contract is CLOSE to what you agreed to verbaly.

Based on supposed Contract and Verbal Agreement, they cannot renegotiate the Terms after taking our money and tell us d pwede gawing Residential yun commercial space without due process.

Why would they change the conditions of our agreement? Parang undelivered yun Property dba?

Theoretics wrote:Further clarification:
We asked and asked kung pwede "Stay IN" dito... they said yes, pwede kami mag"STAY IN"... With other inquiries sa other Commercial Spaces we asked around.
"STAY IN" did mean we get to sleep there.

The verbal agreement is "STAY-IN" which should mean we get to also live sa commercial space. please correct me if im wrong.

My Tagalog is very bad, but I understand it as you agreed you can live there beside your business.

Theoretics wrote:
Having people live in commercial spaces is common, right?

Well. I don't know if it's common in COMERSIAL. I DOUBT that.
Many businesses in Philippes are live in, BUT then it's more the OPPOSITE the BUSINESS is "live in" at the home as for many sarisaris.

Theoretics wrote:
The contract doesnt say exclusively for commercial use or it doesnt prohibit the residential use only.

The landlady wanted to twist the meaning around... in the Previous post is the Article 3. Use of Premises...
it says "exclusively used for the operation of XYZ Corp only and for no other purpose"
The landlady was try to trick us that "exclusive" means no Residential...

Well. I DON'T interpretet it as the landlady, but it's some unclear.

Theoretics wrote:Based on supposed Contract and Verbal Agreement, they cannot renegotiate the Terms after taking our money and tell us d pwede gawing Residential yun commercial space without due process.

Corect. Left to see if the justice system find you can prove it.
At BC it can be some LOWER demands of proves, perhaps the BC will find it ok to just make it most likely true.

Theoretics wrote:
Why would they change the conditions of our agreement? Parang undelivered yun Property dba?

Perhaps they have noticed the Barangay/Municipaly don't allow living there.

We had an initial meeting with the Barangay yesterday and we argued about the invalid Contracts, and the Verbal Agreement.

The only thing that can make our case a total loss is if its illegal to take up residence in a commercial space.

I've been researching Philippine Laws and i cant definitely say if its legal or illegal to take up residence in a Commercial Space.

Can anyone here shed some legal expertise?

Theoretics wrote:We had an initial meeting with the Barangay yesterday and we argued about the invalid Contracts, and the Verbal Agreement.

The only thing that can make our case a total loss is if its illegal to take up residence in a commercial space.

I've been researching Philippine Laws and i cant definitely say if its legal or illegal to take up residence in a Commercial Space.

Can anyone here shed some legal expertise?

/Each municipaly/barangay decide such rules themselves over PLANED parts of the municipaly/barangay.
Land having classification as Commersial or Residental belong to such parts where the municipaly/barangay decide.
/But at Agricultural land in NOT planed part of the municipaly/barangay the land/using right OWNER decide if he want to add living houses for his own family and caretakers/workers.

Thank you again Lunkan.

I will ask the Barangay if its allowed or not. By the way, the Property in question is in a Mixed use area. They have residential units directly behind the Commercial Units. Its just separated by a two lane parking lot.

Do you have any arguments i could use if the area is Mixed Use anyways?

Thanks.

Theoretics wrote:Do you have any arguments i could use if the area is Mixed Use anyways?

No
Well. Better ask them if they can allow leting the BUILDING be allowed for mixed use in THIS case , because it's in a mixed used area.