G.R. No.

160346

August 25, 2009

PURITA PAHUD, SOLEDAD PAHUD, and IAN LEE CASTILLA (represented by Mother and Attorney-in-Fact VIRGINIA CASTILLA), Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ISAGANI BELARMINO and LETICIA OCAMPO, EUFEMIA SAN AGUSTINMAGSINO, ZENAIDA SAN AGUSTIN-McCRAE, MILAGROS SAN AGUSTIN-FORTMAN, MINERVA SAN AGUSTIN-ATKINSON, FERDINAND SAN AGUSTIN, RAUL SAN AGUSTIN, ISABELITA SAN AGUSTINLUSTENBERGER and VIRGILIO SAN AGUSTIN, Respondents. DECISION NACHURA, J.: For our resolution is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the April 23, 2003 Decision and October 8, 2003 2 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 59426. The appellate court, in the said decision and 3 resolution, reversed and set aside the January 14, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ruled in favor of petitioners. The dispute stemmed from the following facts. During their lifetime, spouses Pedro San Agustin and Agatona Genil were able to acquire a 246-square meter parcel of land situated in Barangay Anos, Los Baos, Laguna and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. O4 (1655) 0-15. Agatona Genil died on September 13, 1990 while Pedro San Agustin died on September 14, 1991. Both died intestate, survived by their eight (8) children: respondents Eufemia, Raul, Ferdinand, Zenaida, Milagros, Minerva, Isabelita and Virgilio. Sometime in 1992, Eufemia, Ferdinand and Raul executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Undivided Shares conveying in favor of petitioners (the Pahuds, for brevity) their respective shares from the lot they inherited from their deceased 6 parents for P525,000.00. Eufemia also signed the deed on behalf of her four (4) other co-heirs, namely: Isabelita on 7 the basis of a special power of attorney executed on September 28, 1991, and also for Milagros, Minerva, and 8 9 Zenaida but without their apparent written authority. The deed of sale was also not notarized. On July 21, 1992, the Pahuds paid P35,792.31 to the Los Baos Rural Bank where the subject property was 10 mortgaged. The bank issued a release of mortgage and turned over the owners copy of the OCT to the 11 Pahuds. Over the following months, the Pahuds made more payments to Eufemia and her siblings totaling 12 13 toP350,000.00. They agreed to use the remaining P87,500.00 to defray the payment for taxes and the expenses 14 in transferring the title of the property. When Eufemia and her co-heirs drafted an extra-judicial settlement of estate 15 to facilitate the transfer of the title to the Pahuds, Virgilio refused to sign it. On July 8, 1993, Virgilios co-heirs filed a complaint for judicial partition of the subject property before the RTC of Calamba, Laguna. On November 28, 1994, in the course of the proceedings for judicial partition, a Compromise 17 Agreement was signed with seven (7) of the co-heirs agreeing to sell their undivided shares to Virgilio forP700,000.00. The compromise agreement was, however, not approved by the trial court because Atty. Dimetrio Hilbero, lawyer for Eufemia and her six (6) co-heirs, refused to sign the agreement because he knew of the previous 18 sale made to the Pahuds. lawphil.net On December 1, 1994, Eufemia acknowledged having received P700,000.00 from Virgilio. Virgilio then sold the entire property to spouses Isagani Belarmino and Leticia Ocampo (Belarminos) sometime in 1994. The Belarminos immediately constructed a building on the subject property. Alarmed and bewildered by the ongoing construction on the lot they purchased, the Pahuds immediately confronted 20 Eufemia who confirmed to them that Virgilio had sold the property to the Belarminos. Aggrieved, the Pahuds filed a 21 complaint in intervention in the pending case for judicial partition.1avvphil After trial, the RTC upheld the validity of the sale to petitioners. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the Court orders:
19 16 5 1

1. the sale of the 7/8 portion of the property covered by OCT No. O (1655) O-15 by the plaintiffs as heirs of deceased Sps. Pedro San Agustin and Agatona Genil in favor of the Intervenors-Third Party plaintiffs as valid and enforceable, but obligating the Intervenors-Third Party plaintiffs to complete the payment of the purchase price of P437,500.00 by paying the balance of P87,500.00 to defendant Fe (sic) San Agustin Magsino. Upon receipt of the balance, the plaintiff shall formalize the sale of the 7/8 portion in favor of the Intervenor[s]-Third Party plaintiffs; 2. declaring the document entitled "Salaysay sa Pagsang-ayon sa Bilihan" (Exh. "2-a") signed by plaintiff Eufemia San Agustin attached to the unapproved Compromise Agreement (Exh. "2") as not a valid sale in favor of defendant Virgilio San Agustin; 3. declaring the sale (Exh. "4") made by defendant Virgilio San Agustin of the property covered by OCT No. O (1655)-O-15 registered in the names of Spouses Pedro San Agustin and Agatona Genil in favor of Thirdparty defendant Spouses Isagani and Leticia Belarmino as not a valid sale and as inexistent; 4. declaring the defendant Virgilio San Agustin and the Third-Party defendants spouses Isagani and Leticia Belarmino as in bad faith in buying the portion of the property already sold by the plaintiffs in favor of the Intervenors-Third Party Plaintiffs and the Third-Party Defendant Sps. Isagani and Leticia Belarmino in constructing the two-[storey] building in (sic) the property subject of this case; and 5. declaring the parties as not entitled to any damages, with the parties shouldering their respective responsibilities regarding the payment of attorney[]s fees to their respective lawyers. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
22

Not satisfied, respondents appealed the decision to the CA arguing, in the main, that the sale made by Eufemia for and on behalf of her other co-heirs to the Pahuds should have been declared void and inexistent for want of a written authority from her co-heirs. The CA yielded and set aside the findings of the trial court. In disposing the issue, the CA ruled: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated January 14, 1998, rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 92 in Civil Case No. 2011-93-C for Judicial Partition is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered, as follows: (1) The case for partition among the plaintiffs-appellees and appellant Virgilio is now considered closed and terminated; (2) Ordering plaintiffs-appellees to return to intervenors-appellees the total amount they received from the latter, plus an interest of 12% per annum from the time the complaint [in] intervention was filed on April 12, 1995 until actual payment of the same; (3) Declaring the sale of appellant Virgilio San Agustin to appellants spouses, Isagani and Leticia Belarmino[,] as valid and binding; (4) Declaring appellants-spouses as buyers in good faith and for value and are the owners of the subject property. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
23

Petitioners now come to this Court raising the following arguments:

I. The Court of Appeals committed grave and reversible error when it did not apply the second paragraph of Article 1317 of the New Civil Code insofar as ratification is concerned to the sale of the 4/8 portion of the subject property executed by respondents San Agustin in favor of petitioners; II. The Court of Appeals committed grave and reversible error in holding that respondents spouses Belarminos are in good faith when they bought the subject property from respondent Virgilio San Agustin despite the findings of fact by the court a quo that they were in bad faith which clearly contravenes the presence of long line of case laws upholding the task of giving utmost weight and value to the factual findings of the trial court during appeals; [and] III. The Court of Appeals committed grave and reversible error in holding that respondents spouses Belarminos have superior rights over the property in question than petitioners despite the fact that the latter 24 were prior in possession thereby misapplying the provisions of Article 1544 of the New Civil Code. The focal issue to be resolved is the status of the sale of the subject property by Eufemia and her co-heirs to the Pahuds. We find the transaction to be valid and enforceable. Article 1874 of the Civil Code plainly provides: Art. 1874. When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void. Also, under Article 1878, a special power of attorney is necessary for an agent to enter into a contract by which the ownership of an immovable property is transmitted or acquired, either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration. 26 Such stringent statutory requirement has been explained in Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court of Appeals: [T]he authority of an agent to execute a contract [of] sale of real estate must be conferred in writing and must give him specific authority, either to conduct the general business of the principal or to execute a binding contract containing terms and conditions which are in the contract he did execute. A special power of attorney is necessary to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration. The express mandate required by law to enable an appointee of an agency (couched) in general terms to sell must be one that expressly mentions a sale or that includes a sale as a necessary ingredient of the act mentioned. For the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate, a power of attorney must so express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language. When there is any reasonable doubt that the 27 language so used conveys such power, no such construction shall be given the document. In several cases, we have repeatedly held that the absence of a written authority to sell a piece of land is, ipso jure, 28 void, precisely to protect the interest of an unsuspecting owner from being prejudiced by the unwarranted act of another. Based on the foregoing, it is not difficult to conclude, in principle, that the sale made by Eufemia, Isabelita and her two brothers to the Pahuds sometime in 1992 should be valid only with respect to the 4/8 portion of the subject property. The sale with respect to the 3/8 portion, representing the shares of Zenaida, Milagros, and Minerva, is void because Eufemia could not dispose of the interest of her co-heirs in the said lot absent any written authority from the latter, as explicitly required by law. This was, in fact, the ruling of the CA. Still, in their petition, the Pahuds argue that the sale with respect to the 3/8 portion of the land should have been deemed ratified when the three co-heirs, namely: Milagros, Minerva, and Zenaida, executed their respective special 29 30 power of attorneys authorizing Eufemia to represent them in the sale of their shares in the subject property. While the sale with respect to the 3/8 portion is void by express provision of law and not susceptible to 31 ratification, we nevertheless uphold its validity on the basis of the common law principle of estoppel. Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
25

True, at the time of the sale to the Pahuds, Eufemia was not armed with the requisite special power of attorney to 32 dispose of the 3/8 portion of the property. Initially, in their answer to the complaint in intervention, Eufemia and her other co-heirs denied having sold their shares to the Pahuds. During the pre-trial conference, however, they admitted 33 that they had indeed sold 7/8 of the property to the Pahuds sometime in 1992. Thus, the previous denial was 34 35 superseded, if not accordingly amended, by their subsequent admission. Moreover, in their Comment, the said co36 heirs again admitted the sale made to petitioners. Interestingly, in no instance did the three (3) heirs concerned assail the validity of the transaction made by Eufemia to the Pahuds on the basis of want of written authority to sell. They could have easily filed a case for annulment of the sale of their respective shares against Eufemia and the Pahuds. Instead, they opted to remain silent and left the task of raising the validity of the sale as an issue to their co-heir, Virgilio, who is not privy to the said transaction. They cannot be allowed to rely on Eufemia, their attorney-in-fact, to impugn the validity of the first transaction because to allow them to do so would be tantamount to giving premium to their sisters dishonest and fraudulent deed. Undeniably, therefore, the silence and passivity of the three co-heirs on the issue bar them from making a contrary claim. It is a basic rule in the law of agency that a principal is subject to liability for loss caused to another by the latters reliance upon a deceitful representation by an agent in the course of his employment (1) if the representation is authorized; (2) if it is within the implied authority of the agent to make for the principal; or (3) if it is apparently 37 authorized, regardless of whether the agent was authorized by him or not to make the representation. By their continued silence, Zenaida, Milagros and Minerva have caused the Pahuds to believe that they have indeed clothed Eufemia with the authority to transact on their behalf. Clearly, the three co-heirs are now estopped from impugning the validity of the sale from assailing the authority of Eufemia to enter into such transaction. Accordingly, the subsequent sale made by the seven co-heirs to Virgilio was void because they no longer had any 38 interest over the subject property which they could alienate at the time of the second transaction. Nemo dat quod non habet. Virgilio, however, could still alienate his 1/8 undivided share to the Belarminos. The Belarminos, for their part, cannot argue that they purchased the property from Virgilio in good faith. As a general rule, a purchaser of a real property is not required to make any further inquiry beyond what the certificate of title 39 indicates on its face. But the rule excludes those who purchase with knowledge of the defect in the title of the vendor or of facts sufficient to induce a reasonable and prudent person to inquire into the status of the 40 property. Such purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on guard, and later claim that he acted in good faith on the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his obvious neglect by closing his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in the vendors title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if afterwards it turns out that the title was, in fact, defective. In such a case, he is deemed to have bought the property at his own risk, and any injury or prejudice 41 occasioned by such transaction must be borne by him. In the case at bar, the Belarminos were fully aware that the property was registered not in the name of the immediate 42 transferor, Virgilio, but remained in the name of Pedro San Agustin and Agatona Genil. This fact alone is sufficient 43 impetus to make further inquiry and, thus, negate their claim that they are purchasers for value in good faith. They knew that the property was still subject of partition proceedings before the trial court, and that the compromise agreement signed by the heirs was not approved by the RTC following the opposition of the counsel for Eufemia and 44 her six other co-heirs. The Belarminos, being transferees pendente lite, are deemed buyers in mala fide, and they stand exactly in the shoes of the transferor and are bound by any judgment or decree which may be rendered for or 45 against the transferor. Furthermore, had they verified the status of the property by asking the neighboring residents, 46 they would have been able to talk to the Pahuds who occupy an adjoining business establishment and would have known that a portion of the property had already been sold. All these existing and readily verifiable facts are sufficient to suggest that the Belarminos knew that they were buying the property at their own risk. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the April 23, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals as well as its October 8, 2003 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 59426, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the January 14, 1998 Decision of Branch 92 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that the sale made by respondent Virgilio San Agustin to respondent spouses Isagani Belarmino and Leticia Ocampo is valid only with respect to the 1/8 portion of the subject property. The trial court is ordered to proceed with the partition of the property with dispatch.SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 171052

January 28, 2008

PHILIPPINE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDERS, INC. (MAXICARE), petitioner, vs. CARMELA ESTRADA/CARA HEALTH SERVICES, respondent. DECISION NACHURA, J.: This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision dated June 16, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA2 G.R. CV No. 66040 which affirmed in toto the Decision dated October 8, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 135, of Makati City in an action for breach of contract and damages filed by respondent Carmela Estrada, sole proprietor of Cara Health Services, against Philippine Health-Care Providers, Inc. (Maxicare). The facts, as found by the CA and adopted by Maxicare in its petition, follow: [Maxicare] is a domestic corporation engaged in selling health insurance plans whose Chairman Dr. Roberto K. Macasaet, Chief Operating Officer Virgilio del Valle, and Sales/Marketing Manager Josephine Cabrera were impleaded as defendants-appellants. On September 15, 1990, [Maxicare] allegedly engaged the services of Carmela Estrada who was doing business under the name of CARA HEALTH [SERVICES] to promote and sell the prepaid group practice health care delivery program called MAXICARE Plan with the position of Independent Account Executive. [Maxicare] formally appointed [Estrada] as its "General Agent," evidenced by a letter-agreement dated February 16, 1991. The letter agreement provided for plaintiff-appellees [Estradas] compensation in the form of commission, viz.: Commission In consideration of the performance of your functions and duties as specified in this letteragreement, [Maxicare] shall pay you a commission equivalent to 15 to 18% from individual, family, group accounts; 2.5 to 10% on tailored fit plans; and 10% on standard plans of commissionable amount on corporate accounts from all membership dues collected and remitted by you to [Maxicare]. [Maxicare] alleged that it followed a "franchising system" in dealing with its agents whereby an agent had to first secure permission from [Maxicare] to list a prospective company as client. [Estrada] alleged that it did apply with [Maxicare] for the MERALCO account and other accounts, and in fact, its franchise to solicit corporate accounts, MERALCO account included, was renewed on February 11, 1991. Plaintiff-appellee [Estrada] submitted proposals and made representations to the officers of MERALCO regarding the MAXICARE Plan but when MERALCO decided to subscribe to the MAXICARE Plan, [Maxicare] directly negotiated with MERALCO regarding the terms and conditions of the agreement and left plaintiff-appellee [Estrada] out of the discussions on the terms and conditions. On November 28, 1991, MERALCO eventually subscribed to the MAXICARE Plan and signed a Service Agreement directly with [Maxicare] for medical coverage of its qualified members, i.e.: 1) the enrolled dependent/s of regular MERALCO executives; 2) retired executives and their dependents who have opted to enroll and/or continue their MAXICARE membership up to age 65; and 3) regular MERALCO female executives (exclusively for maternity benefits). Its duration was for one (1) year from December 1, 1991 to November 30, 1992. The contract was renewed twice for a term of three (3) years each, the first started on December 1, 1992 while the second took effect on December 1, 1995.
1

The premium amounts paid by MERALCO to [Maxicare] were alleged to be the following: a) P215,788.00 in December 1991; b) P3,450,564.00 in 1992; c) P4,223,710.00 in 1993; d) P4,782,873.00 in 1994; e)P5,102,108.00 in 1995; and P2,394,292.00 in May 1996. As of May 1996, the total amount of premium paid by MERALCO to [Maxicare] was P20,169,335.00. On March 24, 1992, plaintiff-appellee [Estrada], through counsel, demanded from [Maxicare] that it be paid commissions for the MERALCO account and nine (9) other accounts. In reply, [Maxicare], through counsel, denied [Estradas] claims for commission for the MERALCO and other accounts because [Maxicare] directly negotiated with MERALCO and the other accounts(,) and that no agent was given the go signal to intervene in the negotiations for the terms and conditions and the signing of the service agreement with MERALCO and the other accounts so that if ever [Maxicare] was indebted to [Estrada], it was only for P1,555.00 andP43.l2 as commissions on the accounts of Overseas Freighters Co. and Mr. Enrique Acosta, respectively. [Estrada] filed a complaint on March 18, 1993 against [Maxicare] and its officers with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, docketed as Civil Case No. 93-935, raffled to Branch 135. Defendants-appellants [Maxicare] and its officers filed their Answer with Counterclaim on September 13, 1993 and their Amended Answer with Counterclaim on September 28, 1993, alleging that: plaintiff-appellee [Estrada] had no cause of action; the cause of action, if any, should be is against [Maxicare] only and not against its officers; CARA HEALTHs appointment as agent under the February 16, 1991 letter-agreement to promote the MAXICARE Plan was for a period of one (1) year only; said agency was not renewed after the expiration of the one (1) year period; [Estrada] did not intervene in the negotiations of the contract with MERALCO which was directly negotiated by MERALCO with [Maxicare]; and [Estradas] alleged other clients/accounts were not accredited with [Maxicare] as required, since the agency contract on the MAXICARE health plans were not renewed. By way of counterclaim, defendants-appellants [Maxicare] and its officers claimed P100,000.00 in moral damages for each of the officers of [Maxicare] impleaded as defendant, P100,000.00 in exemplary damages, P100,000.00 in attorneys fees, and P10,000.00 in litigation 3 expenses. After trial, the RTC found Maxicare liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay Estrada actual damages in the amount equivalent to 10% of P20,169,335.00, representing her commission for the total premiums paid by Meralco to Maxicare from the year 1991 to 1996, plus legal interest computed from the filing of the complaint on March 18, 1993, and attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000.00. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the RTCs decision. In ruling for Estrada, both the trial and appellate courts held that Estrada was the "efficient procuring cause" in the execution of the service agreement between Meralco and 4 Maxicare consistent with our ruling in Manotok Brothers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. Undaunted, Maxicare comes to this Court and insists on the reversal of the RTC Decision as affirmed by the CA, raising the following issues, to wit: 1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error in affirming Estradas entitlement to commissions for the execution of the service agreement between Meralco and Maxicare. 2. Corollarily, whether Estrada is entitled to commissions for the two (2) consecutive renewals of the service 5 6 agreement effective on December 1, 1992 and December 1, 1995. We are in complete accord with the trial and appellate courts ruling. Estrada is entitled to commissions for the premiums paid under the service agreement between Meralco and Maxicare from 1991 to 1996. Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the 7 appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties. A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted except upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower courts inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific

evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on 8 record. None of the foregoing exceptions which would warrant a reversal of the assailed decision obtains in this instance. Maxicare urges us that both the RTC and CA failed to take into account the stipulations contained in the February 19, 1991 letter agreement authorizing the payment of commissions only upon satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., collection and contemporaneous remittance of premium dues by Estrada to Maxicare. Allegedly, the lower courts disregarded Estradas admission that the negotiations with Meralco failed. Thus, the flawed application of the 9 "efficient procuring cause" doctrine enunciated in Manotok Brothers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, and the erroneous conclusion upholding Estradas entitlement to commissions on contracts completed without her participation. We are not persuaded. Contrary to Maxicares assertion, the trial and the appellate courts carefully considered the factual backdrop of the case as borne out by the records. Both courts were one in the conclusion that Maxicare successfully landed the Meralco account for the sale of healthcare plans only by virtue of Estradas involvement and participation in the negotiations. The assailed Decision aptly states: There is no dispute as to the role that plaintiff-appellee [Estrada] played in selling [Maxicares] health insurance plan to Meralco. Plaintiff-appellee [Estradas] efforts consisted in being the first to offer the Maxicare plan to Meralco, using her connections with some of Meralco Executives, inviting said executives to dinner meetings, making submissions and representations regarding the health plan, sending follow-up letters, etc. These efforts were recognized by Meralco as shown by the certification issued by its Manpower Planning and Research Staff Head Ruben A. Sapitula on September 5, 1991, to wit: "This is to certify that Ms. Carmela Estrada has initiated talks with us since November 1990 with regards (sic) to the HMO requirements of both our rank and file employees, managers and executives, and that it was favorably recommended and the same be approved by the Meralco Management Committee." xxxx This Court finds that plaintiff-appellee [Estradas] efforts were instrumental in introducing the Meralco account to [Maxicare] in regard to the latters Maxicare health insurance plans. Plaintiff-appellee [Estrada] was the efficient "intervening cause" in bringing about the service agreement with Meralco. As pointed out by the trial court in its October 8, 1999 Decision, to wit: "xxx Had not [Estrada] introduced Maxicare Plans to her bosom friends, Messrs. Lopez and 10 Guingona of Meralco, PHPI would still be an anonymity. xxx" Under the foregoing circumstances, we are hard pressed to disturb the findings of the RTC, which the CA affirmed. We cannot overemphasize the principle that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rules 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be put into issue. Questions of fact are not cognizable by this Court. The finding of "efficient procuring cause" by the CA is a question of fact which we desist from passing upon as it would entail delving into factual matters on which such finding was based. To reiterate, the rule is that factual findings of the trial 11 court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record. The jettisoning of the petition is inevitable even upon a close perusal of the merits of the case. First. Maxicares contention that Estrada may only claim commissions from membership dues which she has collected and remitted to Maxicare as expressly provided for in the letter-agreement does not convince us. It is readily apparent that Maxicare is attempting to evade payment of the commission which rightfully belongs to Estrada as the broker who brought the parties together. In fact, Maxicares former Chairman Roberto K. Macasaet testified that 12 Maxicare had been trying to land the Meralco account for two (2) years prior to Estradas entry in 1990. Even 13 without that admission, we note that Meralcos Assistant Vice-President, Donatila San Juan, in a letter dated

January 21, 1992 to then Maxicare President Pedro R. Sen, categorically acknowledged Estradas efforts relative to the sale of Maxicare health plans to Meralco, thus: Sometime in 1989, Meralco received a proposal from Philippine Health-Care Providers, Inc. (Maxicare) through the initiative and efforts of Ms. Carmela Estrada, who introduced Maxicare to Meralco. Prior to this time, we did not know that Maxicare is a major health care provider in the country. We have since negotiated and signed up with Maxicare to provide a health maintenance plan for dependents of Meralco executives, effective December 1, 1991 to November 30, 1992. At the very least, Estrada penetrated the Meralco market, initially closed to Maxicare, and laid the groundwork for a business relationship. The only reason Estrada was not able to participate in the collection and remittance of premium dues to Maxicare was because she was prevented from doing so by the acts of Maxicare, its officers, and employees. In Tan v. Gullas,
14

we had occasion to define a broker and distinguish it from an agent, thus:

[O]ne who is engaged, for others, on a commission, negotiating contracts relative to property with the custody of which he has no concern; the negotiator between the other parties, never acting in his own name but in the name of those who employed him. [A] broker is one whose occupation is to bring the parties 15 together, in matter of trade, commerce or navigation. An agent receives a commission upon the successful conclusion of a sale. On the other hand, a broker 16 earns his pay merely by bringing the buyer and the seller together, even if no sale is eventually made. In relation thereto, we have held that the term "procuring cause" in describing a brokers activity, refers to a causeoriginating a series of events which, without break in their continuity, result in the accomplishment of the prime objective of the employment of the brokerproducing a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy on the owners 17 terms. To be regarded as the "procuring cause" of a sale as to be entitled to a commission, a brokers efforts must 18 have been the foundation on which the negotiations resulting in a sale began. Verily, Estrada was instrumental in the sale of the Maxicare health plans to Meralco. Without her intervention, no sale could have been consummated. Second. Maxicare next contends that Estrada herself admitted that her negotiations with Meralco failed as shown in Annex "F" of the Complaint. The chicanery and disingenuousness of Maxicares counsel is not lost on this Court. We observe that this Annex "F" is, in fact, Maxicares counsels letter dated April 10, 1992 addressed to Estrada. The letter contains a unilateral declaration by Maxicare that the efforts initiated and negotiations undertaken by Estrada failed, such that the service agreement with Meralco was supposedly directly negotiated by Maxicare. Thus, the latter effectively declares that Estrada is not the "efficient procuring cause" of the sale, and as such, is not entitled to commissions. Our holding in Atillo III v. Court of Appeals, ironically the case cited by Maxicare to bolster its position that the statement in Annex "F" amounted to an admission, provides a contrary answer to Maxicares ridiculous contention. We intoned therein that in spite of the presence of judicial admissions in a partys pleading, the trial court is still given 20 leeway to consider other evidence presented. We ruled, thus: As provided for in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof admits of two exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake, and 2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an admission. For instance, if a party invokes an "admission" by an adverse party, but cites the admission "out of context," then the one making the admission may show that he made no "such" admission, or that his admission was taken out of context. This may be interpreted as to mean "not in the sense in which the admission is made to appear." 21 That is the reason for the modifier "such."
19

In this case, the letter, although part of Estradas Complaint, is not, ipso facto, an admission of the statements contained therein, especially since the bone of contention relates to Estradas entitlement to commissions for the sale of health plans she claims to have brokered. It is more than obvious from the entirety of the records that Estrada has unequivocally and consistently declared that her involvement as broker is the proximate cause which consummated the sale between Meralco and Maxicare. Moreover, Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires the purpose for which the evidence is offered to be specified. Undeniably, the letter was attached to the Complaint, and offered in evidence, to demonstrate Maxicares 23 bad faith and ill will towards Estrada. Even a cursory reading of the Complaint and all the pleadings filed thereafter before the RTC, CA, and this Court, readily show that Estrada does not concede, at any point, that her negotiations with Meralco failed. Clearly, Maxicares assertion that Estrada herself does not pretend to be the "efficient procuring cause" in the execution of the service agreement between Meralco and Maxicare is baseless and an outright falsehood. After muddling the issues and representing that Estrada made an admission that her negotiations with Meralco failed, Maxicares counsel then proceeds to cite a case which does not, by any stretch of the imagination, bolster the flawed contention. We, therefore, ADMONISH Maxicares counsel, and, in turn, remind every member of the Bar that the practice of law carries with it responsibilities which are not to be trifled with. Maxicares counsel ought to be reacquainted with Canon 24 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, Rule 10.02, to wit: Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. Third. Finally, we likewise affirm the uniform ruling of the RTC and CA that Estrada is entitled to 10% of the total 25 amount of premiums paid by Meralco to Maxicare as of May 1996. Maxicares argument that assuming Estrada is entitled to commissions, such entitlement only covers the initial year of the service agreement and should not include the premiums paid for the succeeding renewals thereof, fails to impress. Considering that we have sustained the lower courts factual finding of Estradas close, proximate and causal connection to the sale of health plans, we are not wont to disturb Estradas complete entitlement to commission for the total premiums paid until May 1996 in the amount of P20,169,335.00. WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.
22

G.R. No. 143978

December 3, 2002

MANUEL B. TAN, GREGG M. TECSON and ALEXANDER SALDAA, petitioners, vs. EDUARDO R. GULLAS and NORMA S. GULLAS, respondents. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This is a petition for review seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 46539, 3 which reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 22 in Civil Case No. CEB-12740. The records show that private respondents, Spouses Eduardo R. Gullas and Norma S. Gullas, were the registered owners of a parcel of land in the Municipality of Minglanilla, Province of Cebu, measuring 104,114 sq. m., with 4 5 Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31465. On June 29, 1992, they executed a special power of attorney authorizing 6 petitioners Manuel B. Tan, a licensed real estate broker, and his associates Gregg M. Tecson and Alexander Saldaa, to negotiate for the sale of the land at Five Hundred Fifty Pesos (P550.00) per square meter, at a commission of 3% of the gross price. The power of attorney was non-exclusive and effective for one month from June 7 29, 1992. On the same date, petitioner Tan contacted Engineer Edsel Ledesma, construction manager of the Sisters of Mary of Banneaux, Inc. (hereafter, Sisters of Mary), a religious organization interested in acquiring a property in the Minglanilla area. In the morning of July 1, 1992, petitioner Tan visited the property with Engineer Ledesma. Thereafter, the two men accompanied Sisters Michaela Kim and Azucena Gaviola, representing the Sisters of Mary, to see private respondent Eduardo Gullas in his office at the University of Visayas. The Sisters, who had already seen and inspected the land, 8 found the same suitable for their purpose and expressed their desire to buy it. However, they requested that the selling price be reduced to Five Hundred Thirty Pesos (P530.00) per square meter instead of Five Hundred Fifty Pesos (P550.00) per square meter. Private respondent Eduardo Gullas referred the prospective buyers to his wife. It was the first time that the buyers came to know that private respondent Eduardo Gullas was the owner of the property. On July 3, 1992, private respondents agreed to sell the property to the Sisters of Mary, and subsequently 9 executed a special power of attorney in favor of Eufemia Caete, giving her the special authority to sell, transfer and convey the land at a fixed price of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) per square meter. On July 17, 1992, attorney-in-fact Eufemia Caete executed a deed of sale in favor of the Sisters of Mary for the price of Twenty Million Eight Hundred Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (P20,822.800.00), or at the rate of Two 10 11 Hundred Pesos (P200.00) per square meter. The buyers subsequently paid the corresponding taxes. Thereafter, 12 the Register of Deeds of Cebu Province issued TCT No. 75981 in the name of the Sisters of Mary of Banneaux, Inc. Earlier, on July 3, 1992, in the afternoon, petitioners went to see private respondent Eduardo Gullas to claim their commission, but the latter told them that he and his wife have already agreed to sell the property to the Sisters of Mary. Private respondents refused to pay the brokers fee and alleged that another group of agents was responsible for the sale of land to the Sisters of Mary. On August 28, 1992, petitioners filed a complaint against the defendants for recovery of their brokers fee in the sum of One Million Six Hundred Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred Twelve and 60/100 Pesos (P1,655,412.60), as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. They alleged that they were the efficient procuring cause in bringing about the sale of the property to the Sisters of Mary, but that their efforts in consummating the sale were frustrated by the private respondents who, in evident bad faith, malice and in order to evade payment of brokers fee, dealt directly with the buyer whom petitioners introduced to them. They further pointed out that the deed of sale was undervalued obviously to evade payment of the correct amount of capital gains tax, documentary stamps and other internal revenue taxes.
13 1 2

In their answer, private respondents countered that, contrary to petitioners claim, they were not the efficient procuring cause in bringing about the consummation of the sale because another broker, Roberto Pacana, introduced the 14 property to the Sisters of Mary ahead of the petitioners. Private respondents maintained that when petitioners introduced the buyers to private respondent Eduardo Gullas, the former were already decided in buying the property through Pacana, who had been paid his commission. Private respondent Eduardo Gullas admitted that petitioners were in his office on July 3, 1992, but only to ask for the reimbursement of their cellular phone expenses. In their reply and answer to counterclaim, petitioners alleged that although the Sisters of Mary knew that the subject land was for sale through various agents, it was petitioners who introduced them to the owners thereof. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, UPON THE AEGIS OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs and against the defendants. By virtue hereof, defendants Eduardo and Norma Gullas are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally plaintiffs Manuel Tan, Gregg Tecson and Alexander Saldaa; 1) The sum of SIX HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND AND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR PESOS (P624,684.00) as brokers fee with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint; and 2) The sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as attorneys fees and costs of litigation. For lack of merit, defendants counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 15

Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. Private respondents argued that the lower court committed errors of fact and law in holding that it was petitioners efforts which brought about the sale of the property and disregarding the previous negotiations between private respondent Norma Gullas and the Sisters of Mary and Pacana. They further alleged that the lower court had no basis for awarding brokers fee, attorneys fees and the costs of litigation to 17 petitioners. Petitioners, for their part, assailed the lower courts basis of the award of brokers fee given to them. They contended that their 3% commission for the sale of the property should be based on the price of P55,180.420.00, or at P530.00 per square meter as agreed upon and not on the alleged actual selling price of P20,822,800.00 or at P200.00 per square meter, since the actual purchase price was undervalued for taxation purposes. They also claimed that the lower court erred in not awarding moral and exemplary damages in spite of its finding of bad faith; and that the amount of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees awarded to them is insufficient. Finally, petitioners argued that the legal 18 interest imposed on their claim should have been pegged at 12% per annum instead of the 6% fixed by the court. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the lower courts decision and rendered another judgment dismissing 19 the complaint. Hence, this appeal. Petitioners raise following issues for resolution: I. THE APPELLATE COURT GROSSLY ERRED IN THEIR FINDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BROKERAGE COMMISSION. II. IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, THE APPELLATE COURT HAS DEPRIVED THE PETITIONERS OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS FEES AND INTEREST IN THE FOREBEARANCE OF MONEY.

The petition is impressed with merit. The records show that petitioner Manuel B. Tan is a licensed real estate broker, and petitioners Gregg M. Tecson and 20 Alexander Saldaa are his associates. In Schmid and Oberly v. RJL Martinez Fishing Corporation, we defined a "broker" as "one who is engaged, for others, on a commission, negotiating contracts relative to property with the custody of which he has no concern; the negotiator between other parties, never acting in his own name but in the name of those who employed him. x x x a broker is one whose occupation is to bring the parties together, in matters of trade, commerce or navigation." (Emphasis supplied) During the trial, it was established that petitioners, as brokers, were authorized by private respondents to negotiate for the sale of their land within a period of one month reckoned from June 29, 1992. The authority given to petitioners was non-exclusive, which meant that private respondents were not precluded from granting the same authority to other agents with respect to the sale of the same property. In fact, private respondent authorized another agent in the person of Mr. Bobby Pacana to sell the same property. There was nothing illegal or amiss in this arrangement, per se, considering the non-exclusivity of petitioners authority to sell. The problem arose when it eventually turned out that these agents were entertaining one and the same buyer, the Sisters of Mary. As correctly observed by the trial court, the argument of the private respondents that Pacana was the one entitled to the stipulated 3% commission is untenable, considering that it was the petitioners who were responsible for the introduction of the representatives of the Sisters of Mary to private respondent Eduardo Gullas. Private respondents, however, maintain that they were not aware that their respective agents were negotiating to sell said property to the same buyer. Private respondents failed to prove their contention that Pacana began negotiations with private respondent Norma Gullas way ahead of petitioners. They failed to present witnesses to substantiate this claim. It is curious that Mrs. Gullas herself was not presented in court to testify about her dealings with Pacana. Neither was Atty. Nachura who was supposedly the one actively negotiating on behalf of the Sisters of Mary, ever presented in court. Private respondents contention that Pacana was the one responsible for the sale of the land is also unsubstantiated. There was nothing on record which established the existence of a previous negotiation among Pacana, Mrs. Gullas and the Sisters of Mary. The only piece of evidence that the private respondents were able to present is an undated and unnotarized Special Power of Attorney in favor of Pacana. While the lack of a date and an oath do not necessarily render said Special Power of Attorney invalid, it should be borne in mind that the contract involves a considerable amount of money. Hence, it is inconsistent with sound business practice that the authority to sell is contained in an undated and unnotarized Special Power of Attorney. Petitioners, on the other hand, were given the written authority to sell by the private respondents. The trial courts evaluation of the witnesses is accorded great respect and finality in the absence of any indication that it overlooked certain facts or circumstances of weight and influence, which if reconsidered, would alter the result of 21 the case. Indeed, it is readily apparent that private respondents are trying to evade payment of the commission which rightfully belong to petitioners as brokers with respect to the sale. There was no dispute as to the role that petitioners played in the transaction. At the very least, petitioners set the sale in motion. They were not able to participate in its consummation only because they were prevented from doing so by the acts of the private respondents. In the case of 22 Alfred Hahn v. Court of Appeals and Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) we ruled that, "An agent receives a commission upon the successful conclusion of a sale. On the other hand, a broker earns his pay merely by bringing the buyer and the seller together, even if no sale is eventually made." (Underscoring ours). Clearly, therefore, petitioners, as brokers, should be entitled to the commission whether or not the sale of the property subject matter of the contract was concluded through their efforts. Having ruled that petitioners are entitled to the brokers commission, we should now resolve how much commission are petitioners entitled to? Following the stipulation in the Special Power of Attorney, petitioners are entitled to 3% commission for the sale of the land in question. Petitioners maintain that their commission should be based on the price at which the land was offered for sale, i.e., P530.00 per square meter. However, the actual purchase price for which the land was sold was only P200.00 per square meter. Therefore, equity considerations dictate that petitioners commission must be based on this price. To rule otherwise would constitute unjust enrichment on the part of petitioners as brokers.

In the matter of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, we affirm the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court to the petitioners. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The May 29, 2000 decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. CEB-12740 ordering private respondents Eduardo Gullas and Norma S. Gullas to pay jointly and severally petitioners Manuel B. Tan, Gregg Tecson and Alexander Saldaa the sum of Six Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand and Six Hundred Eighty-Four Pesos (P624,684.00) as brokers fee with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the filing of the complaint; and the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as attorneys fees and costs of litigation, is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 76931 May 29, 1991 ORIENT AIR SERVICES & HOTEL REPRESENTATIVES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AMERICAN AIR-LINES INCORPORATED, respondents. G.R. No. 76933 May 29, 1991 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ORIENT AIR SERVICES & HOTEL REPRESENTATIVES, INCORPORATED,respondents. Francisco A. Lava, Jr. and Andresito X. Fornier for Orient Air Service and Hotel Representatives, Inc. Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for American Airlines, Inc.

PADILLA, J.:p This case is a consolidation of two (2) petitions for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. CV-04294, entitled "American Airlines, Inc. vs. Orient Air Services and Hotel Representatives, Inc." which 2 affirmed, with modification, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch IV, which dismissed the complaint and granted therein defendant's counterclaim for agent's overriding commission and damages. The antecedent facts are as follows: On 15 January 1977, American Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as American Air), an air carrier offering passenger and air cargo transportation in the Philippines, and Orient Air Services and Hotel Representatives (hereinafter referred to as Orient Air), entered into a General Sales Agency Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement), whereby the former authorized the latter to act as its exclusive general sales agent within the Philippines for the sale of air passenger transportation. Pertinent provisions of the agreement are reproduced, to wit: WITNESSETH In consideration of the mutual convenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Representation of American by Orient Air Services Orient Air Services will act on American's behalf as its exclusive General Sales Agent within the Philippines, including any United States military installation therein which are not serviced by an Air Carrier Representation Office (ACRO), for the sale of air passenger transportation. The services to be performed by Orient Air Services shall include: (a) soliciting and promoting passenger traffic for the services of American and, if necessary, employing staff competent and sufficient to do so; (b) providing and maintaining a suitable area in its place of business to be used exclusively for the transaction of the business of American; (c) arranging for distribution of American's timetables, tariffs and promotional material to sales agents and the general public in the assigned territory; (d) servicing and supervising of sales agents (including such sub-agents as may be appointed by Orient Air Services with the prior written consent of American) in
1

the assigned territory including if required by American the control of remittances and commissions retained; and (e) holding out a passenger reservation facility to sales agents and the general public in the assigned territory. In connection with scheduled or non-scheduled air passenger transportation within the United States, neither Orient Air Services nor its sub-agents will perform services for any other air carrier similar to those to be performed hereunder for American without the prior written consent of American. Subject to periodic instructions and continued consent from American, Orient Air Services may sell air passenger transportation to be performed within the United States by other scheduled air carriers provided American does not provide substantially equivalent schedules between the points involved. xxx xxx xxx 4. Remittances Orient Air Services shall remit in United States dollars to American the ticket stock or exchange orders, less commissions to which Orient Air Services is entitled hereunder, not less frequently than semi-monthly, on the 15th and last days of each month for sales made during the preceding half month. All monies collected by Orient Air Services for transportation sold hereunder on American's ticket stock or on exchange orders, less applicable commissions to which Orient Air Services is entitled hereunder, are the property of American and shall be held in trust by Orient Air Services until satisfactorily accounted for to American. 5. Commissions American will pay Orient Air Services commission on transportation sold hereunder by Orient Air Services or its sub-agents as follows: (a) Sales agency commission American will pay Orient Air Services a sales agency commission for all sales of transportation by Orient Air Services or its sub-agents over American's services and any connecting through air transportation, when made on American's ticket stock, equal to the following percentages of the tariff fares and charges: (i) For transportation solely between points within the United States and between such points and Canada: 7% or such other rate(s) as may be prescribed by the Air Traffic Conference of America. (ii) For transportation included in a through ticket covering transportation between points other than those described above: 8% or such other rate(s) as may be prescribed by the International Air Transport Association. (b) Overriding commission In addition to the above commission American will pay Orient Air Services an overriding commission of 3% of the tariff fares and charges for all sales of transportation over American's service by Orient Air Service or its sub-agents. xxx xxx xxx

10. Default If Orient Air Services shall at any time default in observing or performing any of the provisions of this Agreement or shall become bankrupt or make any assignment for the benefit of or enter into any agreement or promise with its creditors or go into liquidation, or suffer any of its goods to be taken in execution, or if it ceases to be in business, this Agreement may, at the option of American, be terminated forthwith and American may, without prejudice to any of its rights under this Agreement, take possession of any ticket forms, exchange orders, traffic material or other property or funds belonging to American. 11. IATA and ATC Rules The provisions of this Agreement are subject to any applicable rules or resolutions of the International Air Transport Association and the Air Traffic Conference of America, and such rules or resolutions shall control in the event of any conflict with the provisions hereof. xxx xxx xxx 13. Termination American may terminate the Agreement on two days' notice in the event Orient Air Services is unable to transfer to the United States the funds payable by Orient Air Services to American under this Agreement. Either party may terminate the Agreement without cause by giving the other 30 days' notice by letter, telegram or cable. xxx xxx xxx
3

On 11 May 1981, alleging that Orient Air had reneged on its obligations under the Agreement by failing to promptly remit the net proceeds of sales for the months of January to March 1981 in the amount of US $254,400.40, American Air by itself undertook the collection of the proceeds of tickets sold originally by Orient Air and terminated forthwith the Agreement in accordance with Paragraph 13 thereof (Termination). Four (4) days later, or on 15 May 1981, American Air instituted suit against Orient Air with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch 24, for Accounting with 4 Preliminary Attachment or Garnishment, Mandatory Injunction and Restraining Order averring the aforesaid basis for the termination of the Agreement as well as therein defendant's previous record of failures "to promptly settle past outstanding refunds of which there were available funds in the possession of the defendant, . . . to the damage and 5 prejudice of plaintiff." In its Answer with counterclaim dated 9 July 1981, defendant Orient Air denied the material allegations of the complaint with respect to plaintiff's entitlement to alleged unremitted amounts, contending that after application thereof to the commissions due it under the Agreement, plaintiff in fact still owed Orient Air a balance in unpaid overriding commissions. Further, the defendant contended that the actions taken by American Air in the course of terminating the Agreement as well as the termination itself were untenable, Orient Air claiming that American Air's precipitous conduct had occasioned prejudice to its business interests. Finding that the record and the evidence substantiated the allegations of the defendant, the trial court ruled in its favor, rendering a decision dated 16 July 1984, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff dismissing the complaint and holding the termination made by the latter as affecting the GSA agreement illegal and improper and order the plaintiff to reinstate defendant as its general sales agent for passenger tranportation in the Philippines in accordance with said GSA agreement; plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant the balance of the overriding commission on total flown revenue covering the period from March 16, 1977 to December 31, 1980 in the amount of US$84,821.31 plus the additional amount of US$8,000.00 by way of proper 3% overriding commission per month commencing from January 1, 1981 until such reinstatement or said amounts in its Philippine peso equivalent legally prevailing at the time of payment plus legal interest to commence from the filing of the counterclaim up to the time of payment. Further, plaintiff is directed to pay defendant the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand (Pl,500,000.00)
6

pesos as and for exemplary damages; and the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) pesos as and by way of attorney's fees. Costs against plaintiff.
7

On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in a decision promulgated on 27 January 1986, affirmed the findings of the court a quo on their material points but with some modifications with respect to the monetary awards granted. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision is as follows: WHEREFORE, with the following modifications 1) American is ordered to pay Orient the sum of US$53,491.11 representing the balance of the latter's overriding commission covering the period March 16, 1977 to December 31, 1980, or its Philippine peso equivalent in accordance with the official rate of exchange legally prevailing on July 10, 1981, the date the counterclaim was filed; 2) American is ordered to pay Orient the sum of US$7,440.00 as the latter's overriding commission per month starting January 1, 1981 until date of termination, May 9, 1981 or its Philippine peso equivalent in accordance with the official rate of exchange legally prevailing on July 10, 1981, the date the counterclaim was filed 3) American is ordered to pay interest of 12% on said amounts from July 10, 1981 the date the answer with counterclaim was filed, until full payment; 4) American is ordered to pay Orient exemplary damages of P200,000.00; 5) American is ordered to pay Orient the sum of P25,000.00 as attorney's fees. the rest of the appealed decision is affirmed. Costs against American.
8

American Air moved for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision, assailing the substance thereof and arguing for its reversal. The appellate court's decision was also the subject of a Motion for Partial Reconsideration by Orient Air which prayed for the restoration of the trial court's ruling with respect to the monetary awards. The Court of Appeals, by resolution promulgated on 17 December 1986, denied American Air's motion and with respect to that of Orient Air, ruled thus: Orient's motion for partial reconsideration is denied insofar as it prays for affirmance of the trial court's award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees, but granted insofar as the rate of exchange is concerned. The decision of January 27, 1986 is modified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the dispositive part so that the payment of the sums mentioned therein shall be at their Philippine peso equivalent in accordance with the official rate of exchange legally prevailing on the date of 9 actual payment. Both parties appealed the aforesaid resolution and decision of the respondent court, Orient Air as petitioner in G.R. 10 No. 76931 and American Air as petitioner in G.R. No. 76933. By resolution of this Court dated 25 March 1987 both petitions were consolidated, hence, the case at bar. The principal issue for resolution by the Court is the extent of Orient Air's right to the 3% overriding commission. It is the stand of American Air that such commission is based only on sales of its services actually negotiated or transacted by Orient Air, otherwise referred to as "ticketed sales." As basis thereof, primary reliance is placed upon paragraph 5(b) of the Agreement which, in reiteration, is quoted as follows: 5. Commissions

a) . . . b) Overriding Commission In addition to the above commission, American will pay Orient Air Services an overriding commission of 3% of the tariff fees and charges for all sales of transportation over American's services by Orient Air Services or its sub-agents. (Emphasis supplied) Since Orient Air was allowed to carry only the ticket stocks of American Air, and the former not having opted to appoint any sub-agents, it is American Air's contention that Orient Air can claim entitlement to the disputed overriding commission based only on ticketed sales. This is supposed to be the clear meaning of the underscored portion of the above provision. Thus, to be entitled to the 3% overriding commission, the sale must be made by Orient Air and the sale must be done with the use of American Air's ticket stocks. On the other hand, Orient Air contends that the contractual stipulation of a 3% overriding commission covers the total revenue of American Air and not merely that derived from ticketed sales undertaken by Orient Air. The latter, in justification of its submission, invokes its designation as the exclusive General Sales Agent of American Air, with the corresponding obligations arising from such agency, such as, the promotion and solicitation for the services of its principal. In effect, by virtue of such exclusivity, "all sales of transportation over American Air's services are 11 necessarily by Orient Air." It is a well settled legal principle that in the interpretation of a contract, the entirety thereof must be taken into 12 consideration to ascertain the meaning of its provisions. The various stipulations in the contract must be read 13 together to give effect to all. After a careful examination of the records, the Court finds merit in the contention of Orient Air that the Agreement, when interpreted in accordance with the foregoing principles, entitles it to the 3% overriding commission based on total revenue, or as referred to by the parties, "total flown revenue." As the designated exclusive General Sales Agent of American Air, Orient Air was responsible for the promotion and marketing of American Air's services for air passenger transportation, and the solicitation of sales therefor. In return for such efforts and services, Orient Air was to be paid commissions of two (2) kinds: first, a sales agency commission, ranging from 7-8% of tariff fares and charges from sales by Orient Air when made on American Air ticket stock; and second, an overriding commission of 3% of tariff fares and charges for all sales of passenger transportation over American Air services. It is immediately observed that the precondition attached to the first type of commission does not obtain for the second type of commissions. The latter type of commissions would accrue for sales of American Air services made not on its ticket stock but on the ticket stock of other air carriers sold by such carriers or other authorized ticketing facilities or travel agents. To rule otherwise, i.e., to limit the basis of such overriding commissions to sales from American Air ticket stock would erase any distinction between the two (2) types of commissions and would lead to the absurd conclusion that the parties had entered into a contract with meaningless provisions. Such an interpretation must at all times be avoided with every effort exerted to harmonize the entire Agreement. An additional point before finally disposing of this issue. It is clear from the records that American Air was the party responsible for the preparation of the Agreement. Consequently, any ambiguity in this "contract of adhesion" is to be taken "contra proferentem", i.e., construed against the party who caused the ambiguity and could have avoided it by the exercise of a little more care. Thus, Article 1377 of the Civil Code provides that the interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the 14 obscurity. To put it differently, when several interpretations of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that interpretation or construction is to be adopted which is most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was 15 made and who did not cause the ambiguity. We therefore agree with the respondent appellate court's declaration that: Any ambiguity in a contract, whose terms are susceptible of different interpretations, must be read 16 against the party who drafted it. We now turn to the propriety of American Air's termination of the Agreement. The respondent appellate court, on this issue, ruled thus: It is not denied that Orient withheld remittances but such action finds justification from paragraph 4 of the Agreement, Exh. F, which provides for remittances to American less commissions to which

Orient is entitled, and from paragraph 5(d) which specifically allows Orient to retain the full amount of its commissions. Since, as stated ante, Orient is entitled to the 3% override. American's premise, therefore, for the cancellation of the Agreement did not exist. . . ." We agree with the findings of the respondent appellate court. As earlier established, Orient Air was entitled to an overriding commission based on total flown revenue. American Air's perception that Orient Air was remiss or in default of its obligations under the Agreement was, in fact, a situation where the latter acted in accordance with the Agreementthat of retaining from the sales proceeds its accrued commissions before remitting the balance to American Air. Since the latter was still obligated to Orient Air by way of such commissions. Orient Air was clearly justified in retaining and refusing to remit the sums claimed by American Air. The latter's termination of the Agreement was, therefore, without cause and basis, for which it should be held liable to Orient Air. On the matter of damages, the respondent appellate court modified by reduction the trial court's award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees. This Court sees no error in such modification and, thus, affirms the same. It is believed, however, that respondent appellate court erred in affirming the rest of the decision of the trial court. We refer particularly to the lower court's decision ordering American Air to "reinstate defendant as its general sales agent for passenger transportation in the Philippines in accordance with said GSA Agreement." By affirming this ruling of the trial court, respondent appellate court, in effect, compels American Air to extend its personality to Orient Air. Such would be violative of the principles and essence of agency, defined by law as a contract whereby "a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of 17 another, WITH THE CONSENT OR AUTHORITY OF THE LATTER . (emphasis supplied) In an agent-principal relationship, the personality of the principal is extended through the facility of the agent. In so doing, the agent, by legal fiction, becomes the principal, authorized to perform all acts which the latter would have him do. Such a relationship can only be effected with the consent of the principal, which must not, in any way, be compelled by law or by any court. The Agreement itself between the parties states that "either party may terminate the Agreement without cause by giving the other 30 days' notice by letter, telegram or cable." (emphasis supplied) We, therefore, set aside the portion of the ruling of the respondent appellate court reinstating Orient Air as general sales agent of American Air. WHEREFORE, with the foregoing modification, the Court AFFIRMS the decision and resolution of the respondent Court of Appeals, dated 27 January 1986 and 17 December 1986, respectively. Costs against petitioner American Air. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 120465 September 9, 1999 WILLIAM UY and RODEL ROXAS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROBERT BALAO and NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.: Petitioners William Uy and Rodel Roxas are agents authorized to sell eight parcels of land by the owners thereof. By virtue of such authority, petitioners offered to sell the lands, located in Tuba, Tadiangan, Benguet to respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) to be utilized and developed as a housing project. On February 14, 1989, the NHA Board passed Resolution No. 1632 approving the acquisition of said lands, with an area of 31.8231 hectares, at the cost of P23.867 million, pursuant to which the parties executed a series of Deeds of Absolute Sale covering the subject lands. Of the eight parcels of land, however, only five were paid for by the NHA 1 because of the report it received from the Land Geosciences Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that the remaining area is located at an active landslide area and therefore, not suitable for development into a housing project. On 22 November 1991, the NHA issued Resolution No. 2352 cancelling the sale over the three parcels of land. The NHA, through Resolution No. 2394, subsecguently offered the amount of P1.225 million to the landowners asdaos perjuicios. On 9 March 1992, petitioners filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a Complaint for Damages against NHA and its General Manager Robert Balao. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the cancellation of the contract to be justified. The trial court nevertheless awarded damages to plaintiffs in the sum of P1.255 million, the same amount initially offered by NHA to petitioners as damages.1wphi1.nt Upon appeal by petitioners, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and entered a new one dismissing the complaint. It held that since there was "sufficient justifiable basis" in cancelling the sale, "it saw no reason" for the award of damages. The Court of Appeals also noted that petitioners were mere attorneys-in-fact and, therefore, not the real parties-in-interest in the action before the trial court. . . . In paragraph 4 of the complaint, plaintiffs alleged themselves to be "sellers' agents" for the several owners of the 8 lots subject matter of the case. Obsviously, William Uy and Rodel Roxas in filing this case acted as attorneys-in-fact of the lot owners who are the real parties in interest but who were omitted to be pleaded as party-plaintiffs in the case. This omission is fatal. Where the action is brought by an attorney-in-fact of a land owner in his name, (as in our present action) and not in the name of his principal, the action was properly dismissed (Ferrer vs. Villamor, 60 SCRA 406 [1974]; Marcelo vs. de Leon, 105 Phil. 1175) because the rule is that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real parties-in-interest (Section 2, Rule 3, Rules of Court). When plaintiffs UY and Roxas sought payment of damages in their favor in view of the partial rescission of Resolution No. 1632 and the Deed of Absolute Sale covering TCT Nos. 10998, 10999 and 11292 (Prayer complaint, page 5, RTC records), it becomes obviously indispensable that the lot owners be included, mentioned and named as partyplaintiffs, being the real party-in-interest. UY and Roxas, as attorneys-in-fact or apoderados, cannot by themselves lawfully commence this action, more so, when the supposed special power of attorney, in their favor, was never presented as an evidence in this case. Besides, even if herein plaintiffs Uy and Roxas were authorized by the lot owners to commence this action, the same must still be filed in the name of the principal, (Filipino Industrial Corporation vs. San Diego, 23 SCRA 706 [1968]). As such

indispensable party, their joinder in the action is mandatory and the complaint may be 2 dismissed if not so impleaded (NDC vs. CA, 211 SCRA 422 [1992]). Their motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioners seek relief from this Court contending that: I. THE RESPONDENT CA ERRED IN DECLARING THAT RESPONDENT NHA HAD ANY LEGAL BASIS FOR RESCINDING THE SALE INVOLVING THE LAST THREE (3) PARCELS COVERED BY NHA RESOLUTION NO. 1632. II. GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THE RESPONDENT NHA HAD LEGAL BASIS TO RESCIND THE SUBJECT SALE, THE RESPONDENT CA NONETHELESS ERRED IN DENYING HEREIN PETITIONERS' CLAIM TO DAMAGES, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 1191 OF THE CIVIL CODE. III. THE RESPONDENT CA ERRED IN DISMISSING THE SUBJECT COMPLAINT FINDING THAT THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO JOIN AS INDISPENSABLE PARTY 3 PLAINTIFF THE SELLING LOT-OWNERS. We first resolve the issue raised in the the third assignment of error. Petitioners claim that they lodged the complaint not in behalf of their principals but in their own name as agents directly damaged by the termination of the contract. The damages prayed for were intended not for the benefit of their principals but to indemnify petitioners for the losses they themselves allegedly incurred as a result of such termination. 4 These damages consist mainly of "unearned income" and advances. Petitioners, thus, attempt to distinguish the case at bar from those involving agents or apoderedos instituting actions in their own name but in behalf of their 5 principals. Petitioners in this case purportedly brought the action for damages in their own name and in their own behalf. We find this contention unmeritorious. Sec. 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. The real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. "Interest, within the meaning of the rule, means material interest, an interest in the issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere 6 incidental interest. Cases construing the real party-in-interest provision can be more easily understood if it is borne in mind that the true meaning of real party-in-interest may be summarized as follows: An action shall be prosecuted in 7 the name of the party who, by the substantive law, has the right sought to be enforced. Do petitioners, under substantive law, possess the right they seek to enforce? We rule in the negative. The applicable substantive law in this case is Article 1311 of the Civil Code, which states: Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns, and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation, or by provision of law. . . . If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person. (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioners are not parties to the contract of sale between their principals and NHA. They are mere agents of the owners of the land subject of the sale. As agents, they only render some service or do something in representation or 8 on behalf of their principals. The rendering of such service did not make them parties to the contracts of sale executed in behalf of the latter. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other, the real parties-in-interest, either as plaintiff or defendant, in an action upon that contract must, generally, either be 9 parties to said contract.

Neither has there been any allegation, much less proof, that petitioners are the heirs of their principals. Are petitioners assignees to the rights under the contract of sale? In McMicking vs. Banco Espaol-Filipino, held that the rule requiring every action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest.
10

we

. . . recognizes the assignments of rights of action and also recognizes that when one has a right of action assigned to him he is then the real party in interest and may maintain an action upon such claim or right. The purpose of [this rule] is to require the plaintiff to be the real party in interest, or, in other words, he must be the person to whom the proceeds of the action shall belong, and to prevent actions by persons who have no interest in the result of the same. . . . Thus, an agent, in his own behalf, may bring an action founded on a contract made for his principal, as an assignee of such contract. We find the following declaration in Section 372 (1) of the Restatement of the Law on Agency 11 (Second): Sec. 372. Agent as Owner of Contract Right (1) Unless otherwise agreed, an agent who has or who acquires an interest in a contract which he makes on behalf of his principal can, although not a promisee, maintain such action thereon maintain such action thereon as might a transferee having a similar interest. The Comment on subsection (1) states: a. Agent a transferee. One who has made a contract on behalf of another may become an assignee of the contract and bring suit against the other party to it, as any other transferee. The customs of business or the course of conduct between the principal and the agent may indicate that an agent who ordinarily has merely a security interest is a transferee of the principals rights under the contract and as such is permitted to bring suit. If the agent has settled with his principal with the understanding that he is to collect the claim against the obligor by way of reimbursing himself for his advances and commissions, the agent is in the position of an assignee who is the beneficial owner of the chose in action. He has an irrevocable power to sue in his principal's name. . . . And, under the statutes which permit the real party in interest to sue, he can maintain an action in his own name. This power to sue is not affected by a settlement between the principal and the obligor if the latter has notice of the agent's interest. . . . Even though the agent has not settled with his principal, he may, by agreement with the principal, have a right to receive payment and out of the proceeds to reimburse himself for advances and commissions before turning the balance over to the principal. In such a case, although there is no formal assignment, the agent is in the position of a transferee of the whole claim for security; he has an irrevocable power to sue in his principal's name and, under statutes which permit the real party in interest to sue, he can maintain an action in his own name. Petitioners, however, have not shown that they are assignees of their principals to the subject contracts. While they alleged that they made advances and that they suffered loss of commissions, they have not established any agreement granting them "the right to receive payment and out of the proceeds to reimburse [themselves] for advances and commissions before turning the balance over to the principal[s]." Finally, it does not appear that petitioners are beneficiaries of a stipulation pour autrui under the second paragraph of Article 1311 of the Civil Code. Indeed, there is no stipulation in any of the Deeds of Absolute Sale "clearly and deliberately" conferring a favor to any third person. That petitioners did not obtain their commissions or recoup their advances because of the non-performance of the contract did not entitle them to file the action below against respondent NHA. Section 372 (2) of the Restatement of the Law on Agency (Second) states:

(2) An agent does not have such an interest in a contract as to entitle him to maintain an action at law upon it in his own name merely because he is entitled to a portion of the proceeds as compensation for making it or because he is liable for its breach. The following Comment on the above subsection is illuminating: The fact that an agent who makes a contract for his principal will gain or suffer loss by the performance or nonperformance of the contract by the principal or by the other party thereto does not entitle him to maintain an action on his own behalf against the other party for its breach. An agent entitled to receive a commission from his principal upon the performance of a contract which he has made on his principal's account does not, from this fact alone, have any claim against the other party for breach of the contract, either in an action on the contract or otherwise. An agent who is not a promisee cannot maintain an action at law against a purchaser merely because he is entitled to have his compensation or advances paid out of the purchase price before payment to the principal. . . . Thus, in Hopkins vs. Ives, the Supreme Court of Arkansas, citing Section 372 (2) above, denied the claim of a real estate broker to recover his alleged commission against the purchaser in an agreement to purchase property. In Goduco vs. Court of appeals,
13 12

this Court held that:

. . . granting that appellant had the authority to sell the property, the same did not make the buyer liable for the commission she claimed. At most, the owner of the property and the one who promised to give her a commission should be the one liable to pay the same and to whom the claim should have been directed. . . . As petitioners are not parties, heirs, assignees, or beneficiaries of a stipulation pour autrui under the contracts of sale, they do not, under substantive law, possess the right they seek to enforce. Therefore, they are not the real parties-ininterest in this case. Petitioners not being the real parties-in-interest, any decision rendered herein would be pointless since the same would not bind the real parties-in14 interest. Nevertheless, to forestall further litigation on the substantive aspects of this case, we shall proceed to rule on me 15 merits. Petitioners submit that respondent NHA had no legal basis to "rescind" the sale of the subject three parcels of land. The existence of such legal basis, notwithstanding, petitioners argue that they are still entitled to an award of damages. Petitioners confuse the cancellation of the contract by the NHA as a rescission of the contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code. The right of rescission or, more accurately, resolution, of a party to an obligation under Article 1191 is 16 predicated on a breach of faith by the other party that violates the reciprocity between them. The power to rescind, 17 therefore, is given to the injured party. Article 1191 states: The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible. In this case, the NHA did not rescind the contract. Indeed, it did not have the right to do so for the other parties to the 18 contract, the vendors, did not commit any breach, much less a substantial breach, of their obligation. Their obligation was merely to deliver the parcels of land to the NHA, an obligation that they fulfilled. The NHA did not suffer any injury by the performance thereof.

The cancellation, therefore, was not a rescission under Article 1191. Rather, the cancellation was based on the negation of the cause arising from the realization that the lands, which were the object of the sale, were not suitable for housing.1wphi1.nt Cause is the essential reason which moves the contracting parties to enter into it. In other words, the cause is the immediate, direct and proximate reason which justifies the creation of an obligation through the will of the contracting 20 parties. Cause, which is the essential reason for the contract, should be distinguished from motive, which is the 21 particular reason of a contracting party which does not affect the other party. For example, in a contract of sale of a piece of land, such as in this case, the cause of the vendor (petitioners' principals) in entering into the contract is to obtain the price. For the vendee, NHA, it is the acquisition of the 22 land. The motive of the NHA, on the other hand, is to use said lands for housing. This is apparent from the portion 23 of the Deeds of Absolute Sale stating: WHEREAS, under the Executive Order No. 90 dated December 17, 1986, the VENDEE is mandated to focus and concentrate its efforts and resources in providing housing assistance to the lowest thirty percent (30%) of urban income earners, thru slum upgrading and development of sites and services projects; WHEREAS, Letters of Instructions Nos. 555 and 557 [as] amended by Letter of Instruction No. 630, prescribed slum improvement and upgrading, as well as the development of sites and services as the principal housing strategy for dealing with slum, squatter and other blighted communities; xxx xxx xxx WHEREAS, the VENDEE, in pursuit of and in compliance with the above-stated purposes offers to buy and the VENDORS, in a gesture of their willing to cooperate with the above policy and commitments, agree to sell the aforesaid property together with all the existing improvements there or belonging to the VENDORS; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and the terms and conditions hereinbelow stipulated, the VENDORS hereby, sell, transfer, cede and convey unto the VENDEE, its assigns, or successors-in-interest, a parcel of land located at Bo. Tadiangan, Tuba, Benguet containing a total area of FIFTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETEEN (56,819) SQUARE METERS, more or less . . . . Ordinarily, a party's motives for entering into the contract do not affect the contract. However, when the motive 24 predetermines the cause, the motive may be regarded as the cause. In Liguez vs. Court of Appeals, this Court, speaking through Justice J.B.L. REYES, HELD: . . . it is well to note, however, that Manresa himself (Vol. 8, pp. 641-642), while maintaining the distinction and upholding the inoperativeness of the motives of the parties to determine the validity of the contract, expressly excepts from the rule those contracts that are conditioned upon the attainment of the motives of either party. The same view is held by the Supreme Court of Spain, in its decisions of February 4, 1941, and December 4, 1946, holding that the motive may be regarded as causa when it predetermines the purpose of the contract. In this case, it is clear, and petitioners do not dispute, that NHA would not have entered into the contract were the lands not suitable for housing. In other words, the quality of the land was an implied condition for the NHA to enter into the contract. On the part of the NHA, therefore, the motive was the cause for its being a party to the sale. Were the lands indeed unsuitable for housing as NHA claimed? We deem the findings contained in the report of the Land Geosciences Bureau dated 15 July 1991 sufficient basis for the cancellation of the sale, thus:
19

In Tadiangan, Tuba, the housing site is situated in an area of moderate topography. There [are] more areas of less sloping ground apparently habitable. The site is underlain by . . . thick slide deposits (4-45m) consisting of huge conglomerate boulders (see Photo No. 2) mix[ed] with silty clay materials.These clay particles when saturated have some swelling characteristics which is dangerous for any civil structures especially mass housing 25 development. Petitioners contend that the report was merely "preliminary," and not conclusive, as indicated in its title: MEMORANDUM TO: EDWIN G. DOMINGO Chief, Lands Geology Division FROM: ARISTOTLE A. RILLON Geologist II SUBJECT: Preliminary Assessment of Tadiangan Housing Project in Tuba, Benguet Thus, page 2 of the report states in part: xxx xxx xxx Actually there is a need to conduct further geottechnical [sic] studies in the NHA property. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) must be carried out to give an estimate of the degree of compaction (the relative density) of the slide deposit and also the bearing capacity of the soil materials. Another thing to consider is the vulnerability of the area to landslides and other mass movements due to thick soil cover. Preventive physical mitigation methods such as surface and subsurface drainage and regrading of the slope must be done in the 27 area. We read the quoted portion, however, to mean only that further tests are required to determine the "degree of compaction," "the bearing capacity of the soil materials," and the "vulnerability of the area to landslides," since the tests already conducted were inadequate to ascertain such geological attributes. It is only in this sense that the assessment was "preliminary."
Accordingly, we hold that the NHA was justified in canceling the contract. The realization of the mistake as regards the quality of the land resulted in the negation of the motive/cause thus rendering the contract inexistent. 28 Article 1318 of the Civil Code states that: Art. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) Cause of the obligation which is established. (Emphasis supplied.) Therefore, assuming that petitioners are parties, assignees or beneficiaries to the contract of sale, they would not be entitled to any award of damages. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.SO ORDERED.
26

G.R. No. 130148 December 15, 1997 JOSE BORDADOR and LYDIA BORDADOR, petitioners, vs. BRIGIDA D. LUZ, ERNESTO M. LUZ and NARCISO DEGANOS, respondents.

REGALADO, J.: In this appeal by certiorari, petitioners assail the judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49175 affirming the adjudication of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan which found private respondent Narciso Deganos liable to petitioners for actual damages, but absolved respondent spouses Brigida D. Luz and Ernesto M. Luz of liability. Petitioners likewise belabor the subsequent resolution of the Court of Appeals which denied their motion for reconsideration of its challenged decision. Petitioners were engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jewelry and respondent Brigida D. Luz, also known as Aida D. Luz, was their regular customer. On several occasions during the period from April 27, 1987 to September 4, 1987, respondent Narciso Deganos, the brother to Brigida D. Luz, received several pieces of gold and jewelry from 1 petitioner amounting to P382,816.00. These items and their prices were indicated in seventeen receipts covering the same. Eleven of the receipts stated that they were received for a certain Evelyn Aquino, a niece of Deganos, and the 2 remaining six indicated that they were received for Brigida D. Luz. Deganos was supposed to sell the items at a profit and thereafter remit the proceeds and return the unsold items to petitioners. Deganos remitted only the sum of P53,207.00. He neither paid the balance of the sales proceeds, nor did he return any unsold item to petitioners. By January 1990, the total of his unpaid account to petitioners, including 3 interest, reached the sum of P725,463.98. Petitioners eventually filed a complaint in the barangaycourt against Deganos to recover said amount. In the barangay proceedings, Brigida D. Luz, who was not impleaded in the case, appeared as a witness for Deganos and ultimately, she and her husband, together with Deganos, signed a compromise agreement with petitioners. In that compromise agreement, Deganos obligated himself to pay petitioners, on installment basis, the balance of his account plus interest thereon. However, he failed to comply with his aforestated undertakings. On June 25, 1990, petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 412-M-90 in the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan against Deganos and Brigida, D. Luz for recovery of a sum of money and damages, with an application for 4 preliminary attachment. Ernesto Luz was impleaded therein as the spouse of Brigida. Four years later, or on March 29, 1994, Deganos and Brigida D. Luz were charged with estafa in the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 785-M-94. That criminal case appears to be still pending in said trial court. During the trial of the civil case, petitioners claimed that Deganos acted as the agent of Brigida D. Luz when he received the subject items of jewelry and, because he failed to pay for the same, Brigida, as principal, and her spouse are solidarily liable with him therefor. On the other hand, while Deganos admitted that he had an unpaid obligation to petitioners, he claimed that the same was only in the sum of P382,816.00 and not P725,463.98. He further asserted that it was he alone who was involved in the transaction with the petitioners; that he neither acted as agent for nor was he authorized to act as an agent by Brigida D. Luz, notwithstanding the fact that six of the receipts indicated that the items were received by him for the latter. He further claimed that he never delivered any of the items he received from petitioners to Brigida. Brigida, on her part, denied that she had anything to do with the transactions between petitioners and Dangerous. She claimed that she never authorized Deganos to receive any item of jewelry in her behalf and, for that matter, neither did she actually receive any of the articles in question. After trial, the court below found that only Deganos was liable to petitioners for the amount and damages claimed. It held that while Brigida D. Luz did have transactions with petitioners in the past, the items involved were already paid
5

for and all that Brigida owed petitioners was the sum of P21,483.00 representing interest on the principal account 6 which she had previously paid for. The trial court also found that it was petitioner Lydia Bordador who indicated in the receipts that the items were 7 received by Deganos for Evelyn Aquino and Brigida D. Luz. Said court was "persuaded that Brigida D. Luz was behind Deganos," but because there was no memorandum to this effect, the agreement between the parties was 8 unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Absent the required memorandum or any written document connecting the respondent Luz spouses with the subject receipts, or authorizing Deganos to act on their behalf, the alleged agreement between petitioners and Brigida D. Luz was unenforceable. Deganos was ordered to pay petitioners the amount of P725,463.98, plus legal interest thereon June 25, 1990, and attorney's fees. Brigida D. Luz was ordered to pay P21,483.00 representing the interest on her own personal loan. 9 She and her co-defendant spouse were absolved from any other or further liability. As stated at the outset, petitioners appealed the judgment of the court a quo to the Court Appeals which affirmed said 10 11 judgment. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was subsequently dismissed, hence the present recourse to this Court. The primary issue in the instant petition is whether or not herein respondent spouses are liable to petitioners for the latter's claim for money and damages in the sum of P725,463.98, plus interests and attorney's fees, despite the fact that the evidence does not show that they signed any of the subject receipts or authorized Deganos to received the items of jewelry on their behalf. Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in adopting the findings of the court a quo that respondent spouses are not liable to them, as said conclusion of the trial court is contradicted by the finding of fact of the appellate court 12 that "(Deganos) acted as agent of his sister (Brigida Luz)." In support of this contention, petitioners quoted several letters sent to them by Brigida D. Luz wherein the latter acknowledged her obligation to petitioners and requested for more time to fulfill the same. They likewise aver that Brigida testified in the trial court that Deganos took some gold articles from petitioners and delivered the same to her. Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court, however, found as a fact that the aforementioned letters concerned the previous obligations of Brigida to petitioners, and had nothing to do with the money sought to be recovered in the instant case. Such concurrent factual findings are entitled to great weight, hence, petitioners cannot plausibly claim in this appellate review that the letters were in the nature of acknowledgments by Brigida that she was the principal of Deganos in the subject transactions. On the other hand, with regard to the testimony of Brigida admitting delivery of the gold to her, there is no showing whatsoever that her statement referred to the items which are the subject matter of this case. It cannot, therefore, be validly said that she admitted her liability regarding the same. Petitioners insist that Deganos was the agent of Brigida D. Luz as the latter clothed him with apparent authority as her agent and held him out to the public as such, hence Brigida can not be permitted to deny said authority to 13 innocent third parties who dealt with Deganos under such belief. Petitioners further represent that the Court of 14 Appeals recognized in its decision that Deganos was an agent of Brigida. The evidence does not support the theory of petitioners that Deganos was an agent of Brigida D. Luz and that the latter should consequently be held solidarily liable with Deganos in his obligation to petitioners. While the quoted statement in the findings of fact of the assailed appellate decision mentioned that Deganos ostensibly acted as an agent of Brigida, the actual conclusion and ruling of the Court of Appeals categorically stated that, "(Brigida Luz) 15 never authorized her brother (Deganos) to act for and in her behalf in any transaction with Petitioners . . . . It is clear, therefore, that even assuming arguendo that Deganos acted as an agent of Brigida, the latter never authorized him to act on her behalf with regard to the transaction subject of this case. The Civil Code provides: Art. 1868. By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.

The basis for agency is representation. Here, there is no showing that Brigida consented to the acts of Deganos or authorized him to act on her behalf, much less with respect to the particular transactions involved. Petitioners' attempt to foist liability on respondent spouses through the supposed agency relation with Deganos is groundless and ill-advised. Besides, it was grossly and inexcusably negligent of petitioners to entrust to Deganos, not once or twice but on at least six occasions as evidenced by six receipts, several pieces of jewelry of substantial value without requiring a written authorization from his alleged principal. A person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover 16 upon his peril the authority of the agent. The records show that neither an express nor an implied agency was proven to have existed between Deganos and Brigida D. Luz. Evidently, petitioners, who were negligent in their transactions with Deganos, cannot seek relief from the effects of their negligence by conjuring a supposed agency relation between the two respondents where no evidence supports such claim. Petitioners next allege that the Court of Appeals erred in ignoring the fact that the decision of the court below, which it affirmed, is "null and void" as it contradicted its ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 39445 holding that there is "sufficient evidence/proof" against Brigida D. Luz and Deganos for estafa in the pending criminal case. They further aver that said appellate court erred in ruling against them in this civil action since the same would result in an inevitable conflict of decisions should be trial court convict the accused in the criminal case. By way of backdrop for this argument of petitioners, herein respondents Brigida D. Luz and Deganos had filed a demurrer to evidence and a motion for reconsideration in the aforestated criminal case, both of which were denied by the trial court. They then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals to set aside the denial of their demurrer 17 and motion for reconsideration but, as just stated, their petition therefor was dismissed. Petitioners now claim that the aforesaid dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 39445 with respect to the criminal case is equivalent to a finding that there is sufficient evidence in the estafa case against Brigida D. Luz and Deganos. Hence, as already stated, petitioners theorize that the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals now being impugned in the case at bar would result in a possible conflict with the prospective decision in the criminal case. Instead of promulgating the present decision and resolution under review, so they suggest, the Court of Appeals should have awaited the decision in the criminal case, so as not to render academic or 18 preempt the same or, worse, create two conflicting rulings. Petitioners have apparently lost sight of Article 33 of the Civil Code which provides that in cases involving alleged fraudulent acts, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. It is worth noting that this civil case was instituted four years before the criminal case for estafa was filed, and that although there was a move to consolidate both cases, the same was denied by the trial court. Consequently, it was the duty of the two branches of the Regional Trial Court concerned to independently proceed with the civil and criminal cases. It will also be observed that a final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from 19 civil liability is no bar to a criminal action. It is clear, therefore, that this civil case may proceed independently of the criminal case especially because while both cases are based on the same facts, the quantum of proof required for holding the parties liable therein differ. Thus, it is improvident of petitioners to claim that the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in the present case would be preemptive of the outcome of the criminal case. Their fancied fear of possible conflict between the disposition of this civil case and the coutcome of the pending criminal case is illusory. Petitioners surprisingly postulate that the Court of Appeals had lost its jurisdiction to issue the denial resolution dated August 18, 1997, as the same was tainted with irregularities and badges of fraud perpetrated by its court 21 officers. They charge that said appellate court, through conspiracy and fraud on the part of its officers, gravely abused its discretion in issuing that resolution denying their motion for reconsideration. They claim that said resolution was drafted by the ponente, then signed and issued by the members of the Eleventh Division of said court within one and a half days from the elevation thereof by the division clerk of court to the office of theponente.
20

It is the thesis of petitioners that there was undue haste in issuing the resolution as the same was made without waiting for the lapse of the ten-day period for respondents to file their comment and for petitioners to file their reply. It was allegedly impossible for the Court of Appeals to resolve the issue in just one and a half days, especially because its ponente, the late Justice Maximiano C. Asuncion, was then recuperating from surgery and, that, additionally, 22 "hundreds of more important cases were pending." These lamentable allegation of irregularities in the Court of Appeals and in the conduct of its officers strikes us as a desperate attempt of petitioners to induce this Court to give credence to their arguments which, as already found by both the trial and intermediate appellate courts, are devoid of factual and legal substance. The regrettably irresponsible attempt to tarnish the image of the intermediate appellate tribunal and its judicial officers through ad hominem imputations could well be contumacious, but we are inclined to let that pass with a strict admonition that petitioners refrain from indulging in such conduct in litigations. On July 9, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in this case affirming the trial court's decision. Petitioners moved for reconsideration and the Court of Appeals ordered respondents to file a comment. Respondents filed the 24 25 same on August 5, 1997 and petitioners filed their reply to said comment on August 15, 1997. The Eleventh Division of said court issued the questioned resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration on August 18, 26 1997. It is ironic that while some litigants malign the judiciary for being supposedly slothful in disposing of cases, petitioners are making a show of calling out for justice because the Court of Appeals issued a resolution disposing of a case sooner than expected of it. They would even deny the exercise of discretion by the appellate court to prioritize its action on cases in line with the procedure it has adopted in disposing thereof and in declogging its dockets. It is definitely not for the parties to determine and dictate when and how a tribunal should act upon those cases since they are not even aware of the status of the dockets and the internal rules and policies for acting thereon. The fact that a resolution was issued by said court within a relatively short period of time after the records of the case were elevated to the office of the ponente cannot, by itself, be deemed irregular. There is no showing whatsoever that the resolution was issued without considering the reply filed by petitioners. In fact, that brief pleading filed by petitioners does not exhibit any esoteric or ponderous argument which could not be analyzed within an hour. It is a 27 legal presumption, born of wisdom and experience, that official duty has been regularly performed; that the proceedings of a judicial tribunal are regular and valid, and that judicial acts and duties have been and will be duly 28 and properly performed. The burden of proving irregularity in official conduct is on the part of petitioners and they have utterly failed to do so. It is thus reprehensible for them to cast aspersions on a court of law on the bases of conjectures or surmises, especially since one of the petitioners appears to be a member of the Philippine Bar. Lastly, petitioners fault the trial court's holding that whatever contract of agency was established between Brigida D. Luz and Narciso Deganos is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as that aspect of this case allegedly is not 29 covered thereby. They proceed on the premise that the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not to executed or to partially executed ones. From there, they move on to claim that the contract involved in this case was an executed contract as the items had already been delivered by petitioners to Brigida D. Luz, hence, such delivery resulted in the execution of the contract and removed the same from the coverage of the Statute of Frauds. Petitioners' claim is speciously unmeritorious. It should be emphasized that neither the trial court nor the appellate court categorically stated that there was such a contractual relation between these two respondents. The trial court merely said that if there was such an agency existing between them, the same is unenforceable as the contract would fall under the Statute of Frauds which requires the presentation of a note or memorandum thereof in order to be enforceable in court. That was merely a preparatory statement of a principle of law. What was finally proven as a matter of fact is that there was no such contract between Brigida D. Luz and Narciso Deganos, executed or partially executed, and no delivery of any of the items subject of this case was ever made to the former. WHEREFORE, no error having been committed by the Court of Appeals in affirming the judgment of the court a quo, its challenged decision and resolution are hereby AFFIRMED and the instant petition is DENIED, with double costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.
23

G.R. No. L-24332 January 31, 1978 RAMON RALLOS, Administrator of the Estate of CONCEPCION RALLOS, petitioner, vs. FELIX GO CHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Seno, Mendoza & Associates for petitioner. Ramon Duterte for private respondent.

MUOZ PALMA, J.: This is a case of an attorney-in-fact, Simeon Rallos, who after of his death of his principal, Concepcion Rallos, sold the latter's undivided share in a parcel of land pursuant to a power of attorney which the principal had executed in favor. The administrator of the estate of the went to court to have the sale declared uneanforceable and to recover the disposed share. The trial court granted the relief prayed for, but upon appeal the Court of Appeals uphold the validity of the sale and the complaint. Hence, this Petition for Review on certiorari. The following facts are not disputed. Concepcion and Gerundia both surnamed Rallos were sisters and registered coowners of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 5983 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11116 of the Registry of Cebu. On April 21, 1954, the sisters executed a special power of attorney in favor of their brother, Simeon Rallos, authorizing him to sell for and in their behalf lot 5983. On March 3, 1955, Concepcion Rallos died. On September 12, 1955, Simeon Rallos sold the undivided shares of his sisters Concepcion and Gerundia in lot 5983 to Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation for the sum of P10,686.90. The deed of sale was registered in the Registry of Deeds of Cebu, TCT No. 11118 was cancelled, and a new transfer certificate of Title No. 12989 was issued in the named of the vendee. On May 18, 1956 Ramon Rallos as administrator of the Intestate Estate of Concepcion Rallos filed a complaint docketed as Civil Case No. R-4530 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, praying (1) that the sale of the undivided share of the deceased Concepcion Rallos in lot 5983 be d unenforceable, and said share be reconveyed to her estate; (2) that the Certificate of 'title issued in the name of Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation be cancelled and another title be issued in the names of the corporation and the "Intestate estate of Concepcion Rallos" in equal undivided and (3) that plaintiff be indemnified by way of attorney's fees and payment of costs of suit. Named party defendants were Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation, Simeon Rallos, and the Register of Deeds of Cebu, but subsequently, the latter was dropped from the complaint. The complaint was amended twice; defendant Corporation's Answer contained a crossclaim against its co-defendant, Simon Rallos while the latter filed third-party complaint against his sister, Gerundia Rallos While the case was pending in the trial court, both Simon and his sister Gerundia died and they were substituted by the respective administrators of their estates. After trial the court a quo rendered judgment with the following dispositive portion: A. On Plaintiffs Complaint (1) Declaring the deed of sale, Exh. "C", null and void insofar as the one-half proindiviso share of Concepcion Rallos in the property in question, Lot 5983 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu is concerned; (2) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Cebu City to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12989 covering Lot 5983 and to issue in lieu thereof another in the names of FELIX GO CHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION and the Estate of Concepcion Rallos in the proportion of one-half (1/2) share each pro-indiviso;

(3) Ordering Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation to deliver the possession of an undivided one-half (1/2) share of Lot 5983 to the herein plaintiff; (4) Sentencing the defendant Juan T. Borromeo, administrator of the Estate of Simeon Rallos, to pay to plaintiff in concept of reasonable attorney's fees the sum of P1,000.00; and (5) Ordering both defendants to pay the costs jointly and severally. B. On GO CHANTS Cross-Claim: (1) Sentencing the co-defendant Juan T. Borromeo, administrator of the Estate of Simeon Rallos, to pay to defendant Felix Co Chan & Sons Realty Corporation the sum of P5,343.45, representing the price of one-half (1/2) share of lot 5983; (2) Ordering co-defendant Juan T. Borromeo, administrator of the Estate of Simeon Rallos, to pay in concept of reasonable attorney's fees to Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation the sum of P500.00. C. On Third-Party Complaint of defendant Juan T. Borromeo administrator of Estate of Simeon Rallos, against Josefina Rallos special administratrix of the Estate of Gerundia Rallos: (1) Dismissing the third-party complaint without prejudice to filing either a complaint against the regular administrator of the Estate of Gerundia Rallos or a claim in the Intestate-Estate of Cerundia Rallos, covering the same subject-matter of the third-party complaint, at bar. (pp. 98-100, Record on Appeal) Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation appealed in due time to the Court of Appeals from the foregoing judgment insofar as it set aside the sale of the one-half (1/2) share of Concepcion Rallos. The appellate tribunal, as adverted to earlier, resolved the appeal on November 20, 1964 in favor of the appellant corporation sustaining the sale in 1 question. The appellee administrator, Ramon Rallos, moved for a reconsider of the decision but the same was 2 denied in a resolution of March 4, 1965. What is the legal effect of an act performed by an agent after the death of his principal? Applied more particularly to the instant case, We have the query. is the sale of the undivided share of Concepcion Rallos in lot 5983 valid although it was executed by the agent after the death of his principal? What is the law in this jurisdiction as to the effect of the death of the principal on the authority of the agent to act for and in behalf of the latter? Is the fact of knowledge of the death of the principal a material factor in determining the legal effect of an act performed after such death? Before proceedings to the issues, We shall briefly restate certain principles of law relevant to the matter tinder consideration. 1. It is a basic axiom in civil law embodied in our Civil Code that no one may contract in the name of another without 3 being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him. A contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or the legal representation or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been executed, 4 before it is revoked by the other contracting party. Article 1403 (1) of the same Code also provides: ART. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are justified: (1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who hi - been given no authority or legal representation or who has acted beyond his powers; ... Out of the above given principles, sprung the creation and acceptance of the relationship of agency whereby one party, caged the principal (mandante), authorizes another, called the agent (mandatario), to act for and in his behalf in transactions with third persons. The essential elements of agency are: (1) there is consent, express or implied of

the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) 5 the agents acts as a representative and not for himself, and (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority. Agency is basically personal representative, and derivative in nature. The authority of the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal; his act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of the 6 authority. Qui facit per alium facit se. "He who acts through another acts himself". 2. There are various ways of extinguishing agency, but her We are concerned only with one cause death of the principal Paragraph 3 of Art. 1919 of the Civil Code which was taken from Art. 1709 of the Spanish Civil Code provides: ART. 1919. Agency is extinguished. xxx xxx xxx 3. By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent; ... (Emphasis supplied) By reason of the very nature of the relationship between Principal and agent, agency is extinguished by the death of 8 the principal or the agent. This is the law in this jurisdiction. Manresa commenting on Art. 1709 of the Spanish Civil Code explains that the rationale for the law is found in thejuridical basis of agency which is representation Them being an in. integration of the personality of the principal integration that of the agent it is not possible for the representation to continue to exist once the death of either is establish. Pothier agrees with Manresa that by reason of the nature of agency, death is a necessary cause for its extinction. Laurent says that the juridical tie between the principal and the agent is severed ipso jure upon the death 9 of either without necessity for the heirs of the fact to notify the agent of the fact of death of the former. The same rule prevails at common law the death of the principal effects instantaneous and absolute revocation of 10 the authority of the agent unless the Power be coupled with an interest. This is the prevalent rule in American Jurisprudence where it is well-settled that a power without an interest confer. red upon an agent is dissolved by the principal's death, and any attempted execution of the power afterward is not binding on the heirs or representatives of 11 the deceased. 3. Is the general rule provided for in Article 1919 that the death of the principal or of the agent extinguishes the agency, subject to any exception, and if so, is the instant case within that exception? That is the determinative point in issue in this litigation. It is the contention of respondent corporation which was sustained by respondent court that notwithstanding the death of the principal Concepcion Rallos the act of the attorney-in-fact, Simeon Rallos in selling the former's sham in the property is valid and enforceable inasmuch as the corporation acted in good faith in buying the property in question. Articles 1930 and 1931 of the Civil Code provide the exceptions to the general rule afore-mentioned. ART. 1930. The agency shall remain in full force and effect even after the death of the principal, if it has been constituted in the common interest of the latter and of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor. ART. 1931. Anything done by the agent, without knowledge of the death of the principal or of any other cause which extinguishes the agency, is valid and shall be fully effective with respect to third persons who may have contracted with him in good. faith. Article 1930 is not involved because admittedly the special power of attorney executed in favor of Simeon Rallos was not coupled with an interest. Article 1931 is the applicable law. Under this provision, an act done by the agent after the death of his principal is valid and effective only under two conditions, viz: (1) that the agent acted without knowledge of the death of the principal and (2) that the third person who contracted with the agent himself acted in good faith. Good faith here
7

means that the third person was not aware of the death of the principal at the time he contracted with said agent. These two requisites must concur the absence of one will render the act of the agent invalid and unenforceable. In the instant case, it cannot be questioned that the agent, Simeon Rallos, knew of the death of his principal at the time he sold the latter's share in Lot No. 5983 to respondent corporation. The knowledge of the death is clearly to be 12 inferred from the pleadings filed by Simon Rallos before the trial court. That Simeon Rallos knew of the death of his 13 sister Concepcion is also a finding of fact of the court a quo and of respondent appellate court when the latter stated that Simon Rallos 'must have known of the death of his sister, and yet he proceeded with the sale of the lot in the name of both his sisters Concepcion and Gerundia Rallos without informing appellant (the realty corporation) of 14 the death of the former. On the basis of the established knowledge of Simon Rallos concerning the death of his principal Concepcion Rallos, Article 1931 of the Civil Code is inapplicable. The law expressly requires for its application lack of knowledge on the part of the agent of the death of his principal; it is not enough that the third person acted in good faith. Thus in Buason & Reyes v. Panuyas, the Court applying Article 1738 of the old Civil rode now Art. 1931 of the new Civil Code sustained the validity , of a sale made after the death of the principal because it was not shown that the agent knew 15 of his principal's demise. To the same effect is the case of Herrera, et al., v. Luy Kim Guan, et al., 1961, where in the words of Justice Jesus Barrera the Court stated: ... even granting arguemendo that Luis Herrera did die in 1936, plaintiffs presented no proof and there is no indication in the record, that the agent Luy Kim Guan was aware of the death of his principal at the time he sold the property. The death 6f the principal does not render the act of an agent unenforceable, where the latter had no knowledge of such extinguishment of the agency. (1 SCRA 406, 412) 4. In sustaining the validity of the sale to respondent consideration the Court of Appeals reasoned out that there is no provision in the Code which provides that whatever is done by an agent having knowledge of the death of his principal is void even with respect to third persons who may have contracted with him in good faith and without 16 knowledge of the death of the principal. We cannot see the merits of the foregoing argument as it ignores the existence of the general rule enunciated in Article 1919 that the death of the principal extinguishes the agency. That being the general rule it follows a fortiorithat any act of an agent after the death of his principal is void ab initio unless the same fags under the exception provided for in the aforementioned Articles 1930 and 1931. Article 1931, being an exception to the general rule, is to be strictly construed, it is not to be given an interpretation or application beyond the clear import of its terms for otherwise the courts will be involved in a process of legislation outside of their judicial function. 5. Another argument advanced by respondent court is that the vendee acting in good faith relied on the power of attorney which was duly registered on the original certificate of title recorded in the Register of Deeds of the province of Cebu, that no notice of the death was aver annotated on said certificate of title by the heirs of the principal and 17 accordingly they must suffer the consequences of such omission. To support such argument reference is made to a portion in Manresa's Commentaries which We quote: If the agency has been granted for the purpose of contracting with certain persons, the revocation must be made known to them. But if the agency is general iii nature, without reference to particular person with whom the agent is to contract, it is sufficient that the principal exercise due diligence to make the revocation of the agency publicity known. In case of a general power which does not specify the persons to whom represents' on should be made, it is the general opinion that all acts, executed with third persons who contracted in good faith, Without knowledge of the revocation, are valid. In such case, the principal may exercise his right against the agent, who, knowing of the revocation, continued to assume a personality which he no longer had. (Manresa Vol. 11, pp. 561 and 575; pp. 15-16, rollo) The above discourse however, treats of revocation by an act of the principal as a mode of terminating an agency which is to be distinguished from revocation by operation of law such as death of the principal which obtains in this case. On page six of this Opinion We stressed that by reason of the very nature of the relationship between principal and agent, agency is extinguished ipso jure upon the death of either principal or agent. Although a revocation of a

power of attorney to be effective must be communicated to the parties concerned, yet a revocation by operation of law, such as by death of the principal is, as a rule, instantaneously effective inasmuch as "by legal fiction the agent's 19 exercise of authority is regarded as an execution of the principal's continuing will. With death, the principal's will ceases or is the of authority is extinguished. The Civil Code does not impose a duty on the heirs to notify the agent of the death of the principal What the Code provides in Article 1932 is that, if the agent die his heirs must notify the principal thereof, and in the meantime adopt such measures as the circumstances may demand in the interest of the latter. Hence, the fact that no notice of the death of the principal was registered on the certificate of title of the property in the Office of the Register of Deeds, is not fatal to the cause of the estate of the principal 6. Holding that the good faith of a third person in said with an agent affords the former sufficient protection, respondent court drew a "parallel" between the instant case and that of an innocent purchaser for value of a land, stating that if a person purchases a registered land from one who acquired it in bad faith even to the extent of foregoing or falsifying the deed of sale in his favor the registered owner has no recourse against such innocent 20 purchaser for value but only against the forger. To support the correctness of this respondent corporation, in its brief, cites the case of Blondeau, et al., v. Nano and Vallejo, 61 Phil. 625. We quote from the brief: In the case of Angel Blondeau et al. v. Agustin Nano et al., 61 Phil. 630, one Vallejo was a coowner of lands with Agustin Nano. The latter had a power of attorney supposedly executed by Vallejo Nano in his favor. Vallejo delivered to Nano his land titles. The power was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. When the lawyer-husband of Angela Blondeau went to that Office, he found all in order including the power of attorney. But Vallejo denied having executed the power The lower court sustained Vallejo and the plaintiff Blondeau appealed. Reversing the decision of the court a quo, the Supreme Court, quoting the ruling in the case of Eliason v. Wilborn, 261 U.S. 457, held: But there is a narrower ground on which the defenses of the defendant- appellee must be overruled. Agustin Nano had possession of Jose Vallejo's title papers. Without those title papers handed over to Nano with the acquiescence of Vallejo, a fraud could not have been perpetuated. When Fernando de la Canters, a member of the Philippine Bar and the husband of Angela Blondeau, the principal plaintiff, searched the registration record, he found them in due form including the power of attorney of Vallajo in favor of Nano. If this had not been so and if thereafter the proper notation of the encumbrance could not have been made, Angela Blondeau would not have sent P12,000.00 to the defendant Vallejo.' An executed transfer of registered lands placed by the registered owner thereof in the hands of another operates as a representation to a third party that the holder of the transfer is authorized to deal with the land. As between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequence of a breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of coincidence bear the loss. (pp. 19-21) The Blondeau decision, however, is not on all fours with the case before Us because here We are confronted with one who admittedly was an agent of his sister and who sold the property of the latter after her death with full knowledge of such death. The situation is expressly covered by a provision of law on agency the terms of which are clear and unmistakable leaving no room for an interpretation contrary to its tenor, in the same manner that the ruling in Blondeau and the cases cited therein found a basis in Section 55 of the Land Registration Law which in part provides: xxx xxx xxx The production of the owner's duplicate certificate whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the register of deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such instruments, and the new certificate or memorandum Shall be binding upon the registered owner

18

and upon all persons claiming under him in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith: Provided however, That in all cases of registration provided by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the right, of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title. ... (Act No. 496 as amended) 7. One last point raised by respondent corporation in support of the appealed decision is an 1842 ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Cassiday v. McKenzie wherein payments made to an agent after the death of the principal were held to be "good", "the parties being ignorant of the death". Let us take note that the Opinion of Justice Rogers was premised on the statement that the parties were ignorant of the death of the principal. We quote from that decision the following: ... Here the precise point is, whether a payment to an agent when the Parties are ignorant of the death is a good payment. in addition to the case in Campbell before cited, the same judge Lord Ellenboruogh, has decided in 5 Esp. 117, the general question that a payment after the death of principal is not good. Thus, a payment of sailor's wages to a person having a power of attorney to receive them, has been held void when the principal was dead at the time of the payment. If, by this case, it is meant merely to decide the general proposition that by operation of law the death of the principal is a revocation of the powers of the attorney, no objection can be taken to it. But if it intended to say that his principle applies where there was 110 notice of death, or opportunity of twice I must be permitted to dissent from it. ... That a payment may be good today, or bad tomorrow, from the accident circumstance of the death of the principal, which he did not know, and which by no possibility could he know? It would be unjust to the agent and unjust to the debtor. In the civil law, the acts of the agent, done bona fide in ignorance of the death of his principal are held valid and binding upon the heirs of the latter. The same rule holds in the Scottish law, and I cannot believe the common law is so unreasonable... (39 Am. Dec. 76, 80, 81; emphasis supplied) To avoid any wrong impression which the Opinion in Cassiday v. McKenzie may evoke, mention may be made that the above represents the minority view in American jurisprudence. Thus in Clayton v. Merrett, the Court said. There are several cases which seem to hold that although, as a general principle, death revokes an agency and renders null every act of the agent thereafter performed, yet that where a payment has been made in ignorance of the death, such payment will be good. The leading case so holding is that of Cassiday v. McKenzie, 4 Watts & S. (Pa) 282, 39 Am. 76, where, in an elaborate opinion, this view ii broadly announced. It is referred to, and seems to have been followed, in the case of Dick v. Page,17 Mo. 234, 57 AmD 267; but in this latter case it appeared that the estate of the deceased principal had received the benefit of the money paid, and therefore the representative of the estate might well have been held to be estopped from suing for it again. . . . These cases, in so far, at least, as they announce the doctrine under discussion, are exceptional. The Pennsylvania Case, supra (Cassiday v. McKenzie 4 Watts & S. 282, 39 AmD 76), is believed to stand almost, if not quite, alone in announcing the principle in its broadest scope. (52, Misc. 353, 357, cited in 2 C.J. 549) So also in Travers v. Crane, speaking of Cassiday v. McKenzie, and pointing out that the opinion, except so far as it related to the particular facts, was a mere dictum, Baldwin J. said: The opinion, therefore, of the learned Judge may be regarded more as an extrajudicial indication of his views on the general subject, than as the adjudication of the Court upon the point in question. But accordingly all power weight to this opinion, as the judgment of a of great respectability, it stands alone among common law authorities and is opposed by an array too formidable to permit us to following it. (15 Cal. 12,17, cited in 2 C.J. 549) Whatever conflict of legal opinion was generated by Cassiday v. McKenzie in American jurisprudence, no such conflict exists in our own for the simple reason that our statute, the Civil Code, expressly provides for two exceptions to the general rule that death of the principal revokes ipso jure the agency, to wit: (1) that the agency is coupled with an interest (Art 1930), and (2) that the act of the agent was executed without knowledge of the death of the principal and the third person who contracted with the agent acted also in good faith (Art. 1931). Exception No. 2 is the doctrine followed in Cassiday, and again We stress the indispensable requirement that the agent acted without

knowledge or notice of the death of the principal In the case before Us the agent Ramon Rallos executed the sale notwithstanding notice of the death of his principal Accordingly, the agent's act is unenforceable against the estate of his principal. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, We set aside the ecision of respondent appellate court, and We affirm en toto the judgment rendered by then Hon. Amador E. Gomez of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, quoted in pages 2 and 3 of this Opinion, with costs against respondent realty corporation at all instances. So Ordered.

G.R. No. L-41182-3 April 16, 1988 DR. CARLOS L. SEVILLA and LINA O. SEVILLA, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC., ELISEO S.CANILAO, and SEGUNDINA NOGUERA, respondents-appellees.

SARMIENTO , J.: The petitioners invoke the provisions on human relations of the Civil Code in this appeal by certiorari. The facts are beyond dispute: xxx xxx xxx On the strength of a contract (Exhibit A for the appellant Exhibit 2 for the appellees) entered into on Oct. 19, 1960 by and between Mrs. Segundina Noguera, party of the first part; the Tourist World Service, Inc., represented by Mr. Eliseo Canilao as party of the second part, and hereinafter referred to as appellants, the Tourist World Service, Inc. leased the premises belonging to the party of the first part at Mabini St., Manila for the former-s use as a branch office. In the said contract the party of the third part held herself solidarily liable with the party of the part for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on. When the branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant Una 0. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service Inc. by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Mrs. Lina Sevilla, 4% was to go to Lina Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the Tourist World Service, Inc. On or about November 24, 1961 (Exhibit 16) the Tourist World Service, Inc. appears to have been informed that Lina Sevilla was connected with a rival firm, the Philippine Travel Bureau, and, since the branch office was anyhow losing, the Tourist World Service considered closing down its office. This was firmed up by two resolutions of the board of directors of Tourist World Service, Inc. dated Dec. 2, 1961 (Exhibits 12 and 13), the first abolishing the office of the manager and vice-president of the Tourist World Service, Inc., Ermita Branch, and the second,authorizing the corporate secretary to receive the properties of the Tourist World Service then located at the said branch office. It further appears that on Jan. 3, 1962, the contract with the appellees for the use of the Branch Office premises was terminated and while the effectivity thereof was Jan. 31, 1962, the appellees no longer used it. As a matter of fact appellants used it since Nov. 1961. Because of this, and to comply with the mandate of the Tourist World Service, the corporate secretary Gabino Canilao went over to the branch office, and, finding the premises locked, and, being unable to contact Lina Sevilla, he padlocked the premises on June 4, 1962 to protect the interests of the Tourist World Service. When neither the appellant Lina Sevilla nor any of her employees could enter the locked premises, a complaint wall filed by the herein appellants against the appellees with a prayer for the issuance of mandatory preliminary injunction. Both appellees answered with counterclaims. For apparent lack of interest of the parties therein, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the case without prejudice. The appellee Segundina Noguera sought reconsideration of the order dismissing her counterclaim which the court a quo, in an order dated June 8, 1963, granted permitting her to present evidence in support of her counterclaim. On June 17,1963, appellant Lina Sevilla refiled her case against the herein appellees and after the issues were joined, the reinstated counterclaim of Segundina Noguera and the new complaint of appellant Lina Sevilla were jointly heard following which the court a quo ordered both cases dismiss for lack of merit, on the basis of which was elevated the instant appeal on the following assignment of errors: I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED EVEN IN APPRECIATING THE NATURE OF PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA'S COMPLAINT.

II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT MRS. LINA 0. SEVILA'S ARRANGEMENT (WITH APPELLEE TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC.) WAS ONE MERELY OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATION AND IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT THE SAID ARRANGEMENT WAS ONE OF JOINT BUSINESS VENTURE. III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT SHE WAS A MERE EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC. EVEN AS AGAINST THE LATTER. IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT APPELLEES HAD NO RIGHT TO EVICT APPELLANT MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA FROM THE A. MABINI OFFICE BY TAKING THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. V. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AT .ALL APPELLEE NOGUERA'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPELLANT LINA O. SEVILLA'S FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION OF THE A. MABINI PREMISES. VI. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT APPELLANT MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA SIGNED MERELY AS GUARANTOR FOR RENTALS. On the foregoing facts and in the light of the errors asigned the issues to be resolved are: 1. Whether the appellee Tourist World Service unilaterally disco the telephone line at the branch office on Ermita; 2. Whether or not the padlocking of the office by the Tourist World Service was actionable or not; and 3. Whether or not the lessee to the office premises belonging to the appellee Noguera was appellees TWS or TWS and the appellant. In this appeal, appealant Lina Sevilla claims that a joint bussiness venture was entered into by and between her and appellee TWS with offices at the Ermita branch office and that she was not an employee of the TWS to the end that her relationship with TWS was one of a joint business venture appellant made declarations showing: 1. Appellant Mrs. Lina 0. Sevilla, a prominent figure and wife of an eminent eye, ear and nose specialist as well as a imediately columnist had been in the travel business prior to the establishment of the joint business venture with appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. and appellee Eliseo Canilao, her compadre, she being the godmother of one of his children, with her own clientele, coming mostly from her own social circle (pp. 3-6 tsn. February 16,1965). 2. Appellant Mrs. Sevilla was signatory to a lease agreement dated 19 October 1960 (Exh. 'A') covering the premises at A. Mabini St., she expressly warranting and holding [sic] herself 'solidarily' liable with appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. for the prompt payment of the monthly rentals thereof to other appellee Mrs. Noguera (pp. 14-15, tsn. Jan. 18,1964). 3. Appellant Mrs. Sevilla did not receive any salary from appellee Tourist World Service, Inc., which had its own, separate office located at the Trade & Commerce Building; nor was she an employee thereof, having no participation in nor connection with said business at the Trade & Commerce Building (pp. 16-18 tsn Id.). 4. Appellant Mrs. Sevilla earned commissions for her own passengers, her own bookings her own business (and not for any of the business of appellee Tourist World Service, Inc.) obtained from the airline companies. She shared the 7%

commissions given by the airline companies giving appellee Tourist World Service, Lic. 3% thereof aid retaining 4% for herself (pp. 18 tsn. Id.) 5. Appellant Mrs. Sevilla likewise shared in the expenses of maintaining the A. Mabini St. office, paying for the salary of an office secretary, Miss Obieta, and other sundry expenses, aside from desicion the office furniture and supplying some of fice furnishings (pp. 15,18 tsn. April 6,1965), appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. shouldering the rental and other expenses in consideration for the 3% split in the co procured by appellant Mrs. Sevilla (p. 35 tsn Feb. 16,1965). 6. It was the understanding between them that appellant Mrs. Sevilla would be given the title of branch manager for appearance's sake only (p. 31 tsn. Id.), appellee Eliseo Canilao admit that it was just a title for dignity (p. 36 tsn. June 18, 1965- testimony of appellee Eliseo Canilao pp. 38-39 tsn April 61965-testimony of corporate secretary Gabino Canilao (pp- 2-5, Appellants' Reply Brief) Upon the other hand, appellee TWS contend that the appellant was an employee of the appellee 1 Tourist World Service, Inc. and as such was designated manager. xxx xxx xxx The trial court held for the private respondent on the premise that the private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., 3 being the true lessee, it was within its prerogative to terminate the lease and padlock the premises. It likewise found the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, to be a mere employee of said Tourist World Service, Inc. and as such, she was bound by 4 5 the acts of her employer. The respondent Court of Appeal rendered an affirmance. The petitioners now claim that the respondent Court, in sustaining the lower court, erred. Specifically, they state: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT "THE PADLOCKING OF THE PREMISES BY TOURIST WORLD SERVICE INC. WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THE APPELLANT LINA SEVILLA ... WITHOUT NOTIFYING MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA OR ANY OF HER EMPLOYEES AND WITHOUT INFORMING COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT (SEVILIA), WHO IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE PADLOCKING INCIDENT, WAS IN CONFERENCE WITH THE CORPORATE SECRETARY OF TOURIST WORLD SERVICE (ADMITTEDLY THE PERSON WHO PADLOCKED THE SAID OFFICE), IN THEIR ATTEMP AMICABLY SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE APPELLANT (SEVILLA) AND THE TOURIST WORLD SERVICE ... (DID NOT) ENTITLE THE LATTER TO THE RELIEF OF DAMAGES" (ANNEX "A" PP. 7,8 AND ANNEX "B" P. 2) DECISION AGAINST DUE PROCESS WHICH ADHERES TO THE RULE OF LAW. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT SEVILLA RELIEF BECAUSE SHE HAD "OFFERED TO WITHDRAW HER COMP PROVIDED THAT ALL CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS LODGED BY BOTH APPELLEES WERE WITHDRAWN." (ANNEX "A" P. 8) III THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING-IN FACT NOT PASSING AND RESOLVING-APPELLANT SEVILLAS CAUSE OF ACTION FOUNDED ON ARTICLES 19, 20 AND 21 OF THE CIVIL CODE ON RELATIONS. IV
2

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPEAL APPELLANT SEVILLA RELIEF YET NOT RESOLVING HER CLAIM THAT SHE WAS IN JOINT VENTURE WITH TOURIST WORLD SERVICE INC. OR AT LEAST ITS AGENT COUPLED WITH AN INTEREST 6 WHICH COULD NOT BE TERMINATED OR REVOKED UNILATERALLY BY TOURIST WORLD SERVICE INC. As a preliminary inquiry, the Court is asked to declare the true nature of the relation between Lina Sevilla and Tourist World Service, Inc. The respondent Court of see fit to rule on the question, the crucial issue, in its opinion being "whether or not the padlocking of the premises by the Tourist World Service, Inc. without the knowledge and consent of the appellant Lina Sevilla entitled the latter to the relief of damages prayed for and whether or not the evidence for the said appellant supports the contention that the appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. unilaterally and without the consent of the appellant disconnected the telephone lines of the Ermita branch office of the appellee Tourist World 7 Service, Inc. Tourist World Service, Inc., insists, on the other hand, that Lina SEVILLA was a mere employee, being "branch manager" of its Ermita "branch" office and that inferentially, she had no say on the lease executed with the private respondent, Segundina Noguera. The petitioners contend, however, that relation between the between parties was one of joint venture, but concede that "whatever might have been the true relationship between Sevilla and Tourist World Service," the Rule of Law enjoined Tourist World Service and Canilao from taking the law into their own 8 hands, in reference to the padlocking now questioned. The Court finds the resolution of the issue material, for if, as the private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., maintains, that the relation between the parties was in the character of employer and employee, the courts would have been without jurisdiction to try the case, labor disputes being the exclusive domain of the Court of Industrial 9 Relations, later, the Bureau Of Labor Relations, pursuant to statutes then in force. In this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine the evidence of an employer-employee relation. In general, we have relied on the so-called right of control test, "where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such 10 end." Subsequently, however, we have considered, in addition to the standard of right-of control, the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, in determining 11 the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The records will show that the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, was not subject to control by the private respondent Tourist World Service, Inc., either as to the result of the enterprise or as to the means used in connection therewith. In the first place, under the contract of lease covering the Tourist Worlds Ermita office, she had bound herself in solidumas and for rental payments, an arrangement that would be like claims of a master-servant relationship. True the 12 respondent Court would later minimize her participation in the lease as one of mere guaranty, that does not make her an employee of Tourist World, since in any case, a true employee cannot be made to part with his own money in pursuance of his employer's business, or otherwise, assume any liability thereof. In that event, the parties must be bound by some other relation, but certainly not employment. In the second place, and as found by the Appellate Court, '[w]hen the branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant Lina O. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service, Inc. by any airline for any fare brought in on 13 the effort of Mrs. Lina Sevilla. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Sevilla was under the control of Tourist World Service, Inc. "as to the means used." Sevilla in pursuing the business, obviously relied on her own gifts and capabilities. It is further admitted that Sevilla was not in the company's payroll. For her efforts, she retained 4% in commissions from airline bookings, the remaining 3% going to Tourist World. Unlike an employee then, who earns a fixed salary usually, she earned compensation in fluctuating amounts depending on her booking successes. The fact that Sevilla had been designated 'branch manager" does not make her, ergo, Tourist World's employee. As we said, employment is determined by the right-of-control test and certain economic parameters. But titles are weak indicators. In rejecting Tourist World Service, Inc.'s arguments however, we are not, as a consequence, accepting Lina Sevilla's own, that is, that the parties had embarked on a joint venture or otherwise, a partnership. And apparently, Sevilla herself did not recognize the existence of such a relation. In her letter of November 28, 1961, she expressly 14 'concedes your [Tourist World Service, Inc.'s] right to stop the operation of your branch office in effect, accepting Tourist World Service, Inc.'s control over the manner in which the business was run. A joint venture, including a partnership, presupposes generally a of standing between the joint co-venturers or partners, in which each party has

an equal proprietary interest in the capital or property contributed and where each party exercises equal rights in 16 the conduct of the business. furthermore, the parties did not hold themselves out as partners, and the building itself 17 was embellished with the electric sign "Tourist World Service, Inc. in lieu of a distinct partnership name. It is the Court's considered opinion, that when the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, agreed to (wo)man the private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc.'s Ermita office, she must have done so pursuant to a contract of agency. It is the essence 18 of this contract that the agent renders services "in representation or on behalf of another. In the case at bar, Sevilla solicited airline fares, but she did so for and on behalf of her principal, Tourist World Service, Inc. As compensation, she received 4% of the proceeds in the concept of commissions. And as we said, Sevilla herself based on her letter of November 28, 1961, pre-assumed her principal's authority as owner of the business undertaking. We are convinced, considering the circumstances and from the respondent Court's recital of facts, that the ties had contemplated a principal agent relationship, rather than a joint managament or a partnership.. But unlike simple grants of a power of attorney, the agency that we hereby declare to be compatible with the intent of the parties, cannot be revoked at will. The reason is that it is one coupled with an interest, the agency having been 19 created for mutual interest, of the agent and the principal. It appears that Lina Sevilla is a bona fide travel agent herself, and as such, she had acquired an interest in the business entrusted to her. Moreover, she had assumed a personal obligation for the operation thereof, holding herself solidarily liable for the payment of rentals. She continued the business, using her own name, after Tourist World had stopped further operations. Her interest, obviously, is not to the commissions she earned as a result of her business transactions, but one that extends to the very subject matter of the power of management delegated to her. It is an agency that, as we said, cannot be revoked at the pleasure of the principal. Accordingly, the revocation complained of should entitle the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, to damages. As we have stated, the respondent Court avoided this issue, confining itself to the telephone disconnection and padlocking incidents. Anent the disconnection issue, it is the holding of the Court of Appeals that there is 'no evidence 20 showing that the Tourist World Service, Inc. disconnected the telephone lines at the branch office. Yet, what cannot be denied is the fact that Tourist World Service, Inc. did not take pains to have them reconnected. Assuming, therefore, that it had no hand in the disconnection now complained of, it had clearly condoned it, and as owner of the telephone lines, it must shoulder responsibility therefor. The Court of Appeals must likewise be held to be in error with respect to the padlocking incident. For the fact that Tourist World Service, Inc. was the lessee named in the lease con-tract did not accord it any authority to terminate that contract without notice to its actual occupant, and to padlock the premises in such fashion. As this Court has ruled, the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, had acquired a personal stake in the business itself, and necessarily, in the equipment pertaining thereto. Furthermore, Sevilla was not a stranger to that contract having been explicitly named therein as a third party in charge of rental payments (solidarily with Tourist World, Inc.). She could not be ousted from possession as summarily as one would eject an interloper. The Court is satisfied that from the chronicle of events, there was indeed some malevolent design to put the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, in a bad light following disclosures that she had worked for a rival firm. To be sure, the respondent court speaks of alleged business losses to justify the closure '21 but there is no clear showing that Tourist World Ermita Branch had in fact sustained such reverses, let alone, the fact that Sevilla had moonlit for another company. What the evidence discloses, on the other hand, is that following such an information (that Sevilla was working for another company), Tourist World's board of directors adopted two resolutions abolishing the office of 'manager" and authorizing the corporate secretary, the respondent Eliseo Canilao, to effect the takeover of its branch office properties. On January 3, 1962, the private respondents ended the lease over the branch office premises, incidentally, without notice to her. It was only on June 4, 1962, and after office hours significantly, that the Ermita office was padlocked, personally by the respondent Canilao, on the pretext that it was necessary to Protect the interests of the Tourist World Service. 22 " It is strange indeed that Tourist World Service, Inc. did not find such a need when it cancelled the lease five months earlier. While Tourist World Service, Inc. would not pretend that it sought to locate Sevilla to inform her of the closure, but surely, it was aware that after office hours, she could not have been anywhere near the premises. Capping these series of "offensives," it cut the office's telephone lines, paralyzing completely its business operations, and in the process, depriving Sevilla articipation therein. This conduct on the part of Tourist World Service, Inc. betrays a sinister effort to punish Sevillsa it had perceived to be disloyalty on her part. It is offensive, in any event, to elementary norms of justice and fair play.

15

We rule therefore, that for its unwarranted revocation of the contract of agency, the private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., should be sentenced to pay damages. Under the Civil Code, moral damages may be awarded for 23 "breaches of contract where the defendant acted ... in bad faith. We likewise condemn Tourist World Service, Inc. to pay further damages for the moral injury done to Lina Sevilla from its brazen conduct subsequent to the cancellation of the power of attorney granted to her on the authority of Article 21 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 2219 (10) thereof ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to 24 morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. ART. 2219. Moral damages xxx xxx xxx (10) Acts and actions refered into article 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. The respondent, Eliseo Canilao, as a joint tortfeasor is likewise hereby ordered to respond for the same damages in a solidary capacity. Insofar, however, as the private respondent, Segundina Noguera is concerned, no evidence has been shown that she had connived with Tourist World Service, Inc. in the disconnection and padlocking incidents. She cannot therefore be held liable as a cotortfeasor. The Court considers the sums of P25,000.00 as and for moral damages,24 P10,000.00 as exemplary 25 26 27 damages, and P5,000.00 as nominal and/or temperate damages, to be just, fair, and reasonable under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, the Decision promulgated on January 23, 1975 as well as the Resolution issued on July 31, 1975, by the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., and Eliseo Canilao, are ORDERED jointly and severally to indemnify the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, the sum of 25,00.00 as and for moral damages, the sum of P10,000.00, as and for exemplary damages, and the sum of P5,000.00, as and for nominal and/or temperate damages. Costs against said private respondents. SO ORDERED.
25

may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

G.R. No. L-7089

August 31, 1954

DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NORTHERN THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES INC., ET AL., defendants-appellees. Conrado Rubio for appellant. Ruiz, Ruiz, Ruiz, Ruiz, and Benjamin Guerrero for appellees. MONTEMAYOR, J.: The facts in this case based on an agreed statement of facts are simple. In the year 1941 the Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., a domestic corporation operated a movie house in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, and among the persons employed by it was the plaintiff DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, hired as a special guard whose duties were to guard the main entrance of the cine, to maintain peace and order and to report the commission of disorders within the premises. As such guard he carried a revolver. In the afternoon of July 4, 1941, one Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie house. Infuriated by the refusal of plaintiff De la Cruz to let him in without first providing himself with a ticket, Martin attacked him with a bolo. De la Cruz defendant himself as best he could until he was cornered, at which moment to save himself he shot the gate crasher, resulting in the latter's death. For the killing, De la Cruz was charged with homicide in Criminal Case No. 8449 of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. After a re-investigation conducted by the Provincial Fiscal the latter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the court in January 1943. On July 8, 1947, De la Cruz was again accused of the same crime of homicide, in Criminal Case No. 431 of the same Court. After trial, he was finally acquitted of the charge on January 31, 1948. In both criminal cases De la Cruz employed a lawyer to defend him. He demanded from his former employer reimbursement of his expenses but was refused, after which he filed the present action against the movie corporation and the three members of its board of directors, to recover not only the amounts he had paid his lawyers but also moral damages said to have been suffered, due to his worry, his neglect of his interests and his family as well in the supervision of the cultivation of his land, a total of P15,000. On the basis of the complaint and the answer filed by defendants wherein they asked for the dismissal of the complaint, as well as the agreed statement of facts, the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte after rejecting the theory of the plaintiff that he was an agent of the defendants and that as such agent he was entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in connection with the agency (Arts. 1709-1729 of the old Civil Code), found that plaintiff had no cause of action and dismissed the complaint without costs. De la Cruz appealed directly to this Tribunal for the reason that only questions of law are involved in the appeal. We agree with the trial court that the relationship between the movie corporation and the plaintiff was not that of principal and agent because the principle of representation was in no way involved. Plaintiff was not employed to represent the defendant corporation in its dealings with third parties. He was a mere employee hired to perform a certain specific duty or task, that of acting as special guard and staying at the main entrance of the movie house to stop gate crashers and to maintain peace and order within the premises. The question posed by this appeal is whether an employee or servant who in line of duty and while in the performance of the task assigned to him, performs an act which eventually results in his incurring in expenses, caused not directly by his master or employer or his fellow servants or by reason of his performance of his duty, but rather by a third party or stranger not in the employ of his employer, may recover said damages against his employer. The learned trial court in the last paragraph of its decision dismissing the complaint said that "after studying many laws or provisions of law to find out what law is applicable to the facts submitted and admitted by the parties, has found none and it has no other alternative than to dismiss the complaint." The trial court is right. We confess that we are not aware of any law or judicial authority that is directly applicable to the present case, and realizing the importance and far-reaching effect of a ruling on the subject-matter we have searched, though vainly, for judicial authorities and enlightenment. All the laws and principles of law we have found, as regards master and servants, or employer and employee, refer to cases of physical injuries, light or serious, resulting in loss of a member of the body or of any one of the senses, or permanent physical disability or even death, suffered in line of duty and in the course of the performance of the duties assigned to the servant or employee, and these cases are mainly governed by the Employer's Liability Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. But a case involving damages caused to an employee by a stranger or outsider while said employee was in the performance of his duties, presents a novel question which under present legislation we are neither able nor prepared to decide in favor of the employee.

In a case like the present or a similar case of say a driver employed by a transportation company, who while in the course of employment runs over and inflicts physical injuries on or causes the death of a pedestrian; and such driver is later charged criminally in court, one can imagine that it would be to the interest of the employer to give legal help to and defend its employee in order to show that the latter was not guilty of any crime either deliberately or through negligence, because should the employee be finally held criminally liable and he is found to be insolvent, the employer would be subsidiarily liable. That is why, we repeat, it is to the interest of the employer to render legal assistance to its employee. But we are not prepared to say and to hold that the giving of said legal assistance to its employees is a legal obligation. While it might yet and possibly be regarded as a normal obligation, it does not at present count with the sanction of man-made laws. If the employer is not legally obliged to give, legal assistance to its employee and provide him with a lawyer, naturally said employee may not recover the amount he may have paid a lawyer hired by him. Viewed from another angle it may be said that the damage suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the expenses incurred by him in remunerating his lawyer, is not caused by his act of shooting to death the gate crasher but rather by the filing of the charge of homicide which made it necessary for him to defend himself with the aid of counsel. Had no criminal charge been filed against him, there would have been no expenses incurred or damage suffered. So the damage suffered by plaintiff was caused rather by the improper filing of the criminal charge, possibly at the instance of the heirs of the deceased gate crasher and by the State through the Fiscal. We say improper filing, judging by the results of the court proceedings, namely, acquittal. In other words, the plaintiff was innocent and blameless. If despite his innocence and despite the absence of any criminal responsibility on his part he was accused of homicide, then the responsibility for the improper accusation may be laid at the door of the heirs of the deceased and the State, and so theoretically, they are the parties that may be held responsible civilly for damages and if this is so, we fail to see now this responsibility can be transferred to the employer who in no way intervened, much less initiated the criminal proceedings and whose only connection or relation to the whole affairs was that he employed plaintiff to perform a special duty or task, which task or duty was performed lawfully and without negligence. Still another point of view is that the damages incurred here consisting of the payment of the lawyer's fee did not flow directly from the performance of his duties but only indirectly because there was an efficient, intervening cause, namely, the filing of the criminal charges. In other words, the shooting to death of the deceased by the plaintiff was not the proximate cause of the damages suffered but may be regarded as only a remote cause, because from the shooting to the damages suffered there was not that natural and continuous sequence required to fix civil responsibility. In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. No costs.

G.R. No. 123560

March 27, 2000

SPOUSES YU ENG CHO and FRANCISCO TAO YU, petitioners, vs. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., TOURIST WORLD SERVICES, INC., JULIETA CANILAO and CLAUDIA TAGUNICAR, respondents.

PUNO, J.: This petition for review seeks a reversal of the 31 August 1995 1 2 Decision and 11 January 1998 Resolution of the Court of Appeals holding private respondent Claudia Tagunicar solely liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, and deleting the trial court's award for actual damages. The facts as found by the trial court are as follows: Plaintiff Yu Eng Cho is the owner of Young Hardware Co. and Achilles Marketing. In connection with [this] business, he travels from time to time to Malaysia, Taipei and Hongkong. On July 10, 1976, plaintiffs bought plane tickets (Exhs. A & B) from defendant Claudia Tagunicar who represented herself to be an agent of defendant Tourist World Services, Inc. (TWSI). The destination[s] are Hongkong, Tokyo, San Francisco, U.S.A., for the amount of P25,000.00 per computation of said defendant Claudia Tagunicar (Exhs. C & C-1). The purpose of this trip is to go to Fairfield, New Jersey, U.S.A. to buy to two (2) lines of infrared heating system processing textured plastic article (Exh. K). On said date, only the passage from Manila to Hongkong, then to Tokyo, were confirmed. [PAA] Flight 002 from Tokyo to San Francisco was on "RQ" status, meaning "on request". Per instruction of defendant Claudia Tagunicar, plaintiffs returned after a few days for the confirmation of the Tokyo-San Francisco segment of the trip. After calling up Canilao of TWSI, defendant Tagunicar told plaintiffs that their flight is now confirmed all the way. Thereafter, she attached the confirmation stickers on the plane tickets (Exhs. A & B). A few days before the scheduled flight of plaintiffs, their son, Adrian Yu, called the Pan Am office to verify the status of the flight. According to said Adrian Yu, a personnel of defendant Pan Am told him over the phone that plaintiffs' booking[s] are confirmed. On July 23, 1978, plaintiffs left for Hongkong and stayed there for five (5) days. They left Hongkong for Tokyo on July 28, 1978. Upon their arrival in Tokyo, they called up Pan-Am office for reconfirmation of their flight to San Francisco. Said office, however, informed them that their names are not in the manifest. Since plaintiffs were supposed to leave on the 29th of July, 1978, and could not remain in Japan for more than 72 hours, they were constrained to agree to accept airline tickets for Taipei instead, per advise of JAL officials. This is the only option left to them because Northwest Airlines was then on strike, hence, there was no chance for the plaintiffs to obtain airline seats to the United States within 72 hours. Plaintiffs paid for these tickets. Upon reaching Taipei, there were no flight[s] available for plaintiffs, thus, they were forced to return back to Manila on August 3, 1978, instead of proceeding to the United States. [Japan] Air Lines (JAL) refunded the plaintiffs the difference of the price for Tokyo-Taipei [and] Tokyo-San Francisco (Exhs. I & J) in the total amount of P2,602.00. In view of their failure to reach Fairfield, New Jersey, Radiant Heat Enterprises, Inc. cancelled Yu Eng Cho's option to buy the two lines of infra-red heating system (Exh. K). The agreement was for him to inspect the equipment and make final arrangement[s] with the said company not later than August 7, 1978. From this business transaction, plaintiff Yu Eng Cho expected to realize a profit of P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.

[A] scrutiny of defendants' respective evidence reveals the following: Plaintiffs, who were intending to go to the United States, were referred to defendant Claudia Tagunicar, an independent travel solicitor, for the purchase of their plane tickets. As such travel solicitor, she helps in the processing of travel papers like passport, plane tickets, booking of passengers and some assistance at the airport. She is known to defendants Pan-Am, TWSI/Julieta Canilao, because she has been dealing with them in the past years. Defendant Tagunicar advised plaintiffs to take Pan-Am because Northwest Airlines was then on strike and plaintiffs are passing Hongkong, Tokyo, then San Francisco and Pan-Am has a flight from Tokyo to San Francisco. After verifying from defendant TWSI, thru Julieta Canilao, she informed plaintiffs that the fare would be P25,093.93 giving them a discount of P738.95 (Exhs. C, C-1). Plaintiffs, however, gave her a check in the amount of P25,000.00 only for the two round trip tickets. Out of this transaction, Tagunicar received a 7% commission and 1% commission for defendant TWSI. Defendant Claudia Tagunicar purchased the two round-trip Pan-Am tickets from defendant Julieta Canilao with the following schedules: Origin Destination Airline Date Time/Travel Manila Hongkong CX900 7-23Hongkong Tokyo CS500 7-282 78

1135/1325hrs 1615/2115hrs
78

78

Tokyo San Francisco PA00 7-29-

1930/1640hrs

The use of another airline, like in this case it is Cathay Pacific out of Manila, is allowed, although the tickets issued are Pan-Am tickets, as long as it is in connection with a Pan-Am flight. When the two (2) tickets (Exhs. A & B) were issued to plaintiffs, the letter "RQ" appears below the printed word "status" for the flights from Tokyo to San Francisco which means "under request," (Exh. 3-A, 4-A Pan-Am). Before the date of the scheduled departure, defendant Tagunicar received several calls from the plaintiffs inquiring about the status of their bookings. Tagunicar in turn called up TWSI/Canilao to verify; and if Canilao would answer that the bookings are not yet confirmed, she would relate that to the plaintiffs. Defendant Tagunicar claims that on July 13, 1978, a few days before the scheduled flight, plaintiff Yu Eng Cho personally went to her office, pressing her about their flight. She called up defendant Julieta Canilao, and the latter told her "o sige Claudia, confirm na." She even noted this in her index card (Exh. L), that it was Julieta who confirmed the booking (Exh. L-1). It was then that she allegedly attached the confirmation stickers (Exhs. 2, 2-B TWSI) to the tickets. These stickers came from TWSI. Defendant Tagunicar alleges that it was only in the first week of August, 1978 that she learned from Adrian Yu, son of plaintiffs, that the latter were not able to take the flight from Tokyo to San Francisco, U.S.A. After a few days, said Adrian Yu came over with a gentleman and a lady, who turned out to be a lawyer and his secretary. Defendant Tagunicar claims that plaintiffs were asking for her help so that they could file an action against Pan-Am. Because of plaintiffs' promise she will not be involved, she agreed to sign the affidavit (Exh. M) prepared by the lawyer. Defendants TWSI/Canilao denied having confirmed the Tokyo-San Francisco segment of plaintiffs' flight because flights then were really tight because of the on-going strike at Northwest Airlines. Defendant Claudia Tagunicar is very much aware that [said] particular segment was not confirmed, because on the very day of plaintiffs' departure, Tagunicar called up TWSI from the airport; defendant Canilao asked her why she attached stickers on the tickets when in fact that portion of the flight was not yet confirmed. Neither TWSI nor Pan-Am confirmed the flight and never authorized defendant Tagunicar to attach the confirmation stickers. In fact, the confirmation stickers used by defendant Tagunicar are stickers exclusively for use of Pan-Am only. Furthermore, if it is the travel agency that confirms the booking, the IATA number of said agency should appear on the validation or confirmation stickers. The IATA number that appears on the stickers attached to

plaintiffs' tickets (Exhs. A & B) is 2-82-0770 (Exhs. 1, 1-A TWSI), when in fact TWSI's IATA number 3 is 2-83-0770 (Exhs. 5, 5-A TWSI). A complaint for damages was filed by petitioners against private respondents Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am), Tourist World Services, Inc. (TWSI), Julieta Canilao (Canilao), and Claudia Tagunicar (Tagunicar) for expenses allegedly incurred such as costs of tickets and hotel accommodations when petitioners were compelled to stay in Hongkong and then in Tokyo by reason of the non-confirmation of their booking with Pan-Am. In a Decision dated November 14, 1991, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3, held the defendants jointly and severally liable, except defendant Julieta Canilao, thus: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs and ordering defendants Pan American World Airways, Inc., Tourist World Services, Inc. and Claudia Tagunicar, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs the sum of P200,000.00 as actual damages, minus P2,602.00 already refunded to the plaintiffs; P200,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; an amount equivalent to 20% of the award for and as attorney's fees, plus the sum of P30,000.00 as litigation expenses. Defendants' counterclaims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Only respondents Pan Am and Tagunicar appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 11 August 1995, the appellate court rendered judgment modifying the amount of damages awarded, holding private respondent Tagunicar solely liable therefor, and absolving respondents Pan Am and TWSI from any and all liability, thus: PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered declaring appellant Tagunicar solely liable for: 1) Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00; 2) Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00; and 3) Attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 plus costs of suit. The award of actual damages is hereby DELETED. SO ORDERED. In so ruling, respondent court found that Tagunicar is an independent travel solicitor and is not a duly authorized agent or representative of either Pan Am or TWSI. It held that their business transactions are not sufficient to consider Pan Am as the principal, and Tagunicar and TWSI as its agent and sub-agent, respectively. It further held that Tagunicar was not authorized to confirm the bookings of, nor issue validation stickers to, herein petitioners and hence, Pan Am and TWSI cannot be held responsible for her actions. Finally, it deleted the award for actual damages for lack of proof. Hence this petition based on the following assignment of errors: 1. the Court of Appeals, in reversing the decision of the trial court, misapplied the ruling in Nicos Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. [206 SCRA 127]; and 2. the findings of the Court of Appeals that petitioners' ticket reservations in question were not confirmed and that there is no agency relationship among PAN-AM, TWSI and Tagunicar are contrary to the judicial admissions of PAN-AM, TWSI and Tagunicar and likewise contrary to the findings of fact of the trial court.

We affirm. I. The first issue deserves scant consideration. Petitioners contend that contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the decision of the trial court conforms to the standards of an ideal decision set in Nicos Industrial 4 Corporation, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., as "that which, with welcome economy of words, arrives at the factual findings, reaches the legal conclusions, renders its ruling and, having done so, ends." It is averred that the trial court's decision contains a detailed statement of the relevant facts and evidence adduced by the parties which thereafter became the bases for the court's conclusions. A careful scrutiny of the decision rendered by the trial court will show that after narrating the evidence of the parties, it proceeded to dispose of the case with a one-paragraph generalization, to wit: On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Court is constrained to conclude that defendant Pan-Am is the principal, and defendants TWSI and Tagunicar, its authorized agent and sub-agent, respectively. Consequently, defendants Pan-Am, TWSI and Claudia Tagunicar should be held jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs for damages. Defendant Julieta Canilao, who acted in her 5 official capacity as Office Manager of defendant TWSI should not be held personally liable. The trial court's finding of facts is but a summary of the testimonies of the witnesses and the documentary evidence presented by the parties. It did not distinctly and clearly set forth, nor substantiate, the factual and legal bases for 6 holding respondents TWSI, Pan Am and Tagunicar jointly and severally liable. In Del Mundo vs. CA, et al. where the trial court, after summarizing the conflicting asseverations of the parties, disposed of the kernel issue in just two (2) paragraphs, we held: It is understandable that courts, with their heavy dockets and time constraints, often find themselves with little to spare in the preparation of decisions to the extent most desirable. We have thus pointed out that judges might learn to synthesize and to simplify their pronouncements. Nevertheless, concisely written such as they may be, decisions must still distinctly and clearly express, at least in minimum essence, its factual and legal bases. For failing to explain clearly and well the factual and legal bases of its award of moral damages, we set it aside in said case. Once more, we stress that nothing less than Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution requires that "no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." This is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. In the case at bar, the decision of the trial court leaves much to be desired both in form and substance. Even while said decision infringes the Constitution, we will not belabor this infirmity and rather examine the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by the petitioners. II. Petitioners assert that Tagunicar is a sub-agent of TWSI while TWSI is a duly authorized ticketing agent of Pan Am. Proceeding from this premise, they contend that TWSI and Pan Am should be held liable as principals for the acts of Tagunicar. Petitioners stubbornly insist that the existence of the agency relationship has been established by the judicial admissions allegedly made by respondents herein, to wit: (1) the admission made by Pan Am in its Answer that TWSI is its authorized ticket agent; (2) the affidavit executed by Tagunicar where she admitted that she is a duly authorized agent of TWSI; and (3) the admission made by Canilao that TWSI received commissions from ticket sales made by Tagunicar. We do not agree. By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in 7 representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. The elements of agency are: (1) consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agent acts as a representative and not for himself; (4) the agent acts within the 8 scope of his authority. It is a settled rule that persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and 9 in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it. In the case at bar, petitioners rely on the affidavit of respondent Tagunicar where she stated that she is an authorized agent of TWSI. This affidavit, however, has weak probative value in light of respondent Tagunicar's testimony in court to the contrary. Affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion, or for want of suggestion and inquiries. Their infirmity as a species of evidence is a matter of 10 judicial experience and are thus considered inferior to the testimony given in court. Further, affidavits are not

complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering 11 officer and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read to her. Respondent Tagunicar testified that her affidavit was prepared and typewritten by the secretary of petitioners' lawyer, Atty. Acebedo, who both came with Adrian Yu, son of petitioners, when the latter went to see her at her office. This was confirmed by Adrian Yu who 12 testified that Atty. Acebedo brought his notarial seal and notarized the affidavit of the same day. The circumstances under which said affidavit was prepared put in doubt petitioners' claim that it was executed voluntarily by respondent Tagunicar. It appears that the affidavit was prepared and was based on the answers which respondent Tagunicar 13 gave to the questions propounded to her by Atty. Acebedo. They never told her that the affidavit would be used in a 14 case to be filed against her. They even assured her that she would not be included as defendant if she agreed to 15 execute the affidavit. Respondent Tagunicar was prevailed upon by petitioners' son and their lawyer to sign the affidavit despite her objection to the statement therein that she was an agent of TWSI. They assured her that "it is 17 immaterial" This purported admission of respondent Tagunicar cannot be used by petitioners to prove their agency relationship. At any rate, even if such affidavit is to be given any probative value, the existence of the agency relationship cannot be established on its sole basis. The declarations of the agent alone are generally insufficient to 18 establish the fact or extent of his authority. In addition, as between the negative allegation of respondents Canilao and Tagunicar that neither is an agent nor principal of the other, and the affirmative allegation of petitioners that an 19 agency relationship exists, it is the latter who have the burden of evidence to prove their allegation, failing in which, their claim must necessarily fail. We stress that respondent Tagunicar categorically denied in open court that she is a duly authorized agent of TWSI, 20 and declared that she is an independent travel agent. We have consistently ruled that in case of conflict between 21 statements in the affidavit and testimonial declarations, the latter command greater weight. As further proofs of agency, petitioners call our attention to TWSI's Exhibits "7", "7-A", and "8" which show that 22 Tagunicar and TWSI received sales commissions from Pan Am. Exhibit "7" is the Ticket Sales Report submitted by 23 TWSI to Pan Am reflecting the commissions received by TWSI as an agent of Pan Am. Exhibit "7-A" is a listing of 24 the routes taken by passengers who were audited to TWSI's sales report. Exhibit "8" is a receipt issued by TWSI covering the payment made by Tagunicar for the tickets she bought from TWSI. These documents cannot justify the decision that Tagunicar was paid a commission either by TWSI or Pan Am. On the contrary, Tagunicar testified that when she pays TWSI, she already deducts in advance her commission and merely gives the net amount to 25 TWSI. From all sides of the legal prism, the transaction is simply a contract of sale wherein Tagunicar buys airline tickets from TWSI and then sells it at a premium to her clients. III. Petitioners included respondent Pan Am in the complainant on the supposition that since TWSI is its duly authorized agent, and respondent Tagunicar is an agent of TWSI, then Pan Am should also be held responsible for the acts of respondent Tagunicar. Our disquisitions above show that this contention lacks factual and legal bases. Indeed, there is nothing in the records to show that respondent Tagunicar has been employed by Pan Am as its agent, except the bare allegation of petitioners. The real motive of petitioners in suing Pan Am appears in its Amended Complaint that "[d]efendants TWSI, Canilao and Tagunicar may not be financially capable of paying plaintiffs the amounts herein sought to be recovered, and in such event, defendant Pan Am, being their ultimate 26 principal, is primarily and/or subsidiary liable to pay the said amounts to plaintiffs." This lends credence to respondent Tagunicar's testimony that she was persuaded to execute an affidavit implicating respondents because petitioners knew they would not be able to get anything of value from her. In the past, we have warned that this Court will not tolerate an abuse of judicial process by passengers in order to pry on international airlines for damage awards, 27 like "trophies in a safari." This meritless suit against Pan Am becomes more glaring with petitioner' inaction after they were bumped off in Tokyo. If petitioners were of the honest belief that Pan Am was responsible for the misfortune which beset them, there is no evidence to show that they lodged a protest with Pan Am's Tokyo office immediately after they were refused passage for the flight to San Francisco, or even upon their arrival in Manila. The testimony of petitioner Yu Eng Cho in this regard is of title value, viz: Atty. Jalandoni: . . . q Upon arrival at the Tokyo airport, what did you do if any in connection with your schedule[d] trip? a I went to the Hotel, Holiday Inn and from there I immediately called up Pan Am office in Tokyo to reconfirm my flight, but they told me that our names were not listed in the manifest, so next morning, very early in the morning I went to the

airport, Pan Am office in the airport to verify and they told me the same and we were not allowed to leave. q You were scheduled to be in Tokyo for how long Mr. Yu? a We have to leave the next day 29th. q In other words, what was your status as a passenger? a Transient passengers. We cannot stay for more than 72 hours. xxx xxx xxx q As a consequence of the fact that you claimed that the Pan Am office in Tokyo told you that your names were not in the manifest, what did you do, if any? a I ask[ed] them if I can go anywhere in the State? They told me I can go to LA via Japan Airlines and I accepted it. q Do you have the tickets with you that they issued for Los Angels? a It was taken by the Japanese Airlines instead they issue[d] me a ticket to Taipei. xxx xxx xxx q Were you able to take the trip to Los Angeles via Pan Am tickets that was issued to you in lieu of the tickets to San Francisco? a No, sir. q Why not? a The Japanese Airlines said that there were no more available seats. q And as a consequence of that, what did you do, if any? a I am so much scared and worried, so the Japanese Airlines advised us to go to Taipei and I accepted it. xxx xxx xxx q Why did you accept the Japan Airlines offer for you to go to Taipei? a Because there is no chance for us to go to the United States within 72 hours because during that time Northwest Airlines [was] on strike so the seats are very scarce. So they advised me better left (sic) before the 72 hours otherwise you will have trouble with the Japanese immigration. q As a consequence of that you were force[d] to take the trip to Taipei? a Yes, sir.
28

(emphasis supplied)

It grinds against the grain of human experience that petitioners did not insist that they be allowed to board, considering that it was then doubly difficult to get seats because of the ongoing Northwest Airlines strike. It is also

perplexing that petitioners readily accepted whatever the Tokyo office had to offer as an alternative. Inexplicably too, 29 no demand letter was sent to respondents TWSI and Canilao. Nor was a demand letter sent to respondent Pan Am. To say the least, the motive of petitioners in suing Pan Am is suspect. We hasten to add that it is not sufficient to prove that Pan Am did not allow petitioners to board to justify petitioners' claim for damages. Mere refusal to accede to the passenger's wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in 30 the absence of bad faith. The settled rule is that the law presumes good faith such that any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill 31 motive. In the case at bar, we find the evidence presented by petitioners insufficient to overcome the presumption of good faith. They have failed to show any wanton, malevolent or reckless misconduct imputable to respondent Pan Am in its refusal to accommodate petitioners in its Tokyo-San Francisco flight. Pan Am could not have acted in bad faith because petitioners did not have confirmed tickets and more importantly, they were not in the passenger manifest. In not a few cases, this Court did not hesitable to hold an airline liable for damages for having acted in bad faith in refusing to accommodate a passenger who had a confirmed ticket and whose name appeared in the passenger 32 manifest. In Ortigas Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines Inc., we ruled that there was a valid and binding contract between the airline and its passenger after finding that validating sticker on the passenger's ticket had the letters "O.K." appearing in the "Res. Status" box which means "space confirmed" and that the ticket is confirmed or validated. 33 In Pan American World Airways Inc. v. IAC, et al. where a would-be-passenger had the necessary ticket, baggage claim and clearance from immigration all clearly showing that she was a confirmed passenger and included in the passenger manifest and yet was denied accommodation in said flight, we awarded damages. InArmovit, et 34 al. v. CA, et al., we upheld the award of damages made against an airline for gross negligence committed in the 35 issuance of tickets with erroneous entries as to the time of flight. In Alitalia Airways v. CA, et al., we held that when airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the passenger has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage. And finally, an award of damages was held proper in 36 the case of Zalamea, et al. v. CA, et al., where a confirmed passenger included in the manifest was denied accommodation in such flight. On the other hand, the respondent airline in Sarreal, Sr. v. Japan Airlines Co., Ltd., was held not liable for damages where the passenger was not allowed to board the plane because his ticket had not been confirmed. We ruled that "[t]he stub that the lady employee put on the petitioner's ticket showed among other coded items, under the column "status" the letters "RQ" which was understood to mean "Request." Clearly, this does not mean a confirmation but only a request. JAL Traffic Supervisor explained that it would have been different if what was written in the stub were the letter "ok" in which case the petitioner would have been assured of a seat on said flight. But in this case, the petitioner was more of a wait-listed passenger than a regularly booked passenger." In the case at bar, petitioners' ticket were on "RQ" status. They were not confirmed passengers and their names were not listed in the passenger manifest. In other words, this is not a case where Pan Am bound itself to transport petitioners and thereafter reneged on its obligation. Hence, respondent airline cannot be held liable for damages. IV. We hold that respondent Court of Appeals correctly rules that the tickets were never confirmed for good reasons: (1) The persistent calls made by respondent Tagunicar to Canilao, and those made by petitioners at the Manila, Hongkong and Tokyo offices in Pan Am, are eloquent indications that petitioners knew that their tickets have not been confirmed. For, as correctly observed by Pan Am, why would one continually try to have one's ticket confirmed if it had already been confirmed? (2) The validation stickers which respondent Tagunicar attached to petitioners' tickets were those intended for the exclusive use of airline companies. She had no authority to use them. Hence, said validation stickers, wherein the word "OK" appears in the status box, are not valid and binding. (3) The names of 38 petitioners do not appear in the passengers manifest. (4) Respondent Tagunicar's "Exhibit 1" shows that the status of the San Francisco-New York segment was "Ok", meaning it was confirmed, but that the status of the Tokyo-San Francisco segment was still "on request". (5) Respondent Canilao testified that on the day that petitioners were to depart for Hongkong, respondent Tagunicar called her from the airport asking for confirmation of the Tokyo-San Francisco flight, and that when she told respondent Tagunicar that she should not have allowed petitioners to leave 39 because their tickets have not been confirmed, respondent Tagunicar merely said "Bahala na." This was never controverted nor refuted by respondent Tagunicar. (6) To prove that it really did not confirm the bookings of petitioners, respondent Canilao pointed out that the validation stickers which respondent Tagunicar attached to the 40 tickets of petitioners had IATA No. 2-82-0770 stamped on it, whereas the IATA number of TWSI is 28-30770.
37

Undoubtedly, respondent Tagunicar should be liable for having acted in bad faith in misrepresenting to petitioners that their tickets have been confirmed. Her culpability, however, was properly mitigated. Petitioner Yu Eng Cho testified that he repeatedly tried to follow up on the confirmation of their tickets with Pan Am because he doubted the 41 confirmation made by respondent Tagunicar. This is clear proof that petitioners knew that they might be bumped off at Tokyo when they decided to proceed with the trip. Aware of this risk, petitioners exerted efforts to confirm their tickets in Manila, then in Hongkong, and finally in Tokyo. Resultantly, we find the modification as to the amount of damages awarded just and equitable under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. Cost against petitioners.1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-8169

January 29, 1957

THE SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, LTD., petitioner, vs. FIREMEN'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., SALVADOR SISON, PORFIRIO DE LA FUENTE and THE COURT OF APPEALS (First Division),respondents. Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for petitioner. J. A. Wolfson and Manuel Y. Macias for respondents. PADILLA, J.: Appeal by certiorari under Rule 46 to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals which reversed that of the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced ". . . the defendants-appellees to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiffsappellants the sum of P1,651.38, with legal interest from December 6, 1947 (Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil., 177, 180), and the costs in both instances." The Court of Appeals found the following: Inasmuch as both the Plaintiffs-Appellants and the Defendant-Appellee, the Shell Company of the Philippine Islands, Ltd. accept the statement of facts made by the trial court in its decision and appearing on pages 23 to 37 of the Record on Appeal, we quote hereunder such statement: This is an action for recovery of sum of money, based on alleged negligence of the defendants. It is a fact that a Plymounth car owned by Salvador R. Sison was brought, on September 3, 1947 to the Shell Gasoline and Service Station, located at the corner of Marques de Comillas and Isaac Peral Streets, Manila, for washing, greasing and spraying. The operator of the station, having agreed to do service upon payment of P8.00, the car was placed on a hydraulic lifter under the direction of the personnel of the station. What happened to the car is recounted by Perlito Sison, as follows: Q. Will you please describe how they proceeded to do the work? A. Yes, sir. The first thing that was done, as I saw, was to drive the car over the lifter. Then by the aid of the two grease men they raised up my car up to six feet high, and then washing was done. After washing, the next step was greasing. Before greasing was finished, there is a part near the shelf of the right fender, right front fender, of my car to be greased, but the the grease men cannot reached that part, so the next thing to be done was to loosen the lifter just a few feet lower. Then upon releasing the valve to make the car lower, a little bit lower . . . Q. Who released the valve? A. The greasemen, for the escape of the air. As the escape of the air is too strong for my ear I faced backward. I faced toward Isaac Peral Street, and covered my ear. After the escaped of the air has been finished, the air coming out from the valve, I turned to face the car and I saw the car swaying at that time, and just for a few second the car fell., (t.s.n. pp. 22-23.) The case was immediately reported to the Manila Adjustor Company, the adjustor of the firemen's Insurance Company and the Commercial Casualty Insurance Company, as the car was insured with these insurance companies. After having been inspected by one Mr. Baylon, representative of the Manila Adjustor Company, the damaged car was taken to the shops of the Philippine Motors, Incorporated, for repair upon order of the Firemen's Insurance Company and the Commercial Casualty Company, with the consent of Salvador R. Sison. The car was restored to running condition after repairs amounting to P1,651.38, and was delivered to Salvador R. Sison, who, in turn made assignments of his rights to recover damages in favor of the Firemen's Insurance Company and the Commercial Casualty Insurance Company.

On the other hand, the fall of the car from the hydraulic lifter has been explained by Alfonso M. Adriano, a greaseman in the Shell Gasoline and Service Station, as follows: Q. Were you able to lift the car on the hydraulic lifter on the occasion, September 3, 1947? A. Yes, sir. Q. To what height did you raise more or less? A. More or less five feet, sir. Q. After lifting that car that height, what did you do with the car? A. I also washed it, sir. Q. And after washing? A. I greased it. Q. On that occasion, have you been able to finish greasing and washing the car? A. There is one point which I could not reach. Q. And what did you do then? A. I lowered the lifter in order to reach that point. Q. After lowering it a little, what did you do then? A. I pushed and pressed the valve in its gradual pressure. Q. Were you able to reach the portion which you were not able to reach while it was lower? A. No more, sir. Q. Why? A. Because when I was lowering the lifter I saw that the car was swinging and it fell. THE COURT. Why did the car swing and fall? WITNESS: 'That is what I do not know, sir'. (t.s.n., p.67.) The position of Defendant Porfirio de la Fuente is stated in his counter-statement of facts which is hereunder also reproduced: In the afternoon of September 3, 1947, an automobile belonging to the plaintiff Salvador Sison was brought by his son, Perlito Sison, to the gasoline and service station at the corner of Marques de Comillas and Isaac Peral Streets, City of Manila, Philippines, owned by the defendant The Shell Company of the Philippine Islands, Limited, but operated by the defendant Porfirio de la Fuente, for the purpose of having said car washed and greased for a consideration of P8.00 (t.s.n., pp. 19-20.) Said car was insured against loss or damage by Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, and Commercial Casualty Insurance Company jointly for the sum of P10,000 (Exhibits "A', "B", and "D").

The job of washing and greasing was undertaken by defendant Porfirio de la Fuente through his two employees, Alfonso M. Adriano, as greaseman and one surnamed de los Reyes, a helper and washer (t.s.n., pp. 65-67). To perform the job the car was carefully and centrally placed on the platform of the lifter in the gasoline and service station aforementioned before raising up said platform to a height of about 5 feet and then the servicing job was started. After more than one hour of washing and greasing, the job was about to be completed except for an ungreased portion underneath the vehicle which could not be reached by the greasemen. So, the lifter was lowered a little by Alfonso M. Adriano and while doing so, the car for unknown reason accidentally fell and suffered damage to the value of P1, 651.38 (t.s.n., pp. 65-67). The insurance companies after paying the sum of P1,651.38 for the damage and charging the balance of P100.00 to Salvador Sison in accordance with the terms of the insurance contract, have filed this action together with said Salvador Sison for the recovery of the total amount of the damage from the defendants on the ground of negligence (Record on Appeal, pp. 1-6). The defendant Porfirio de la Fuente denied negligence in the operation of the lifter in his separate answer and contended further that the accidental fall of the car was caused by unforseen event (Record on Appeal, pp. 17-19). The owner of the car forthwith notified the insurers who ordered their adjustor, the Manila Adjustor Company, to investigate the incident and after such investigation the damaged car, upon order of the insures and with the consent of the owner, was brought to the shop of the Philippine Motors, Inc. The car was restored to running condition after thereon which amounted to P1,651.38 and returned to the owner who assigned his right to collect the aforesaid amount to the Firemen's Insurance Company and the Commercial Casualty Insurance Company. On 6 December 1947 the insures and the owner of the car brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. and Porfirio de la Fuente to recover from them, jointly and severally, the sum of P1,651.38, interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint until fully paid, the costs. After trial the Court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and sentenced the defendant to pay the amount sought to be recovered, legal interest and costs, as stated at the beginning of this opinion. In arriving at the conclusion that on 3 September 1947 when the car was brought to the station for servicing Profirio de la Fuente, the operator of the gasoline and service station, was an agent of the Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd., the Court of Appeals found that . . . De la Fuente owned his position to the Shell Company which could remove him terminate his services at any time from the said Company, and he undertook to sell the Shell Company's products exculusively at the said Station. For this purpose, De la Fuente was placed in possession of the gasoline and service station under consideration, and was provided with all the equipments needed to operate it, by the said Company, such as the tools and articles listed on Exhibit 2 which the hydraulic lifter (hoist) and accessories, from which Sison's automobile fell on the date in question (Exhibit 1 and 2). These equipments were delivered to De la Fuente on a so-called loan basis. The Shell Company took charge of its care and maintenance and rendered to the public or its customers at that station for the proper functioning of the equipment. Witness Antonio Tiongson, who was sales superintendent of the Shell Company, and witness Augusto Sawyer, foreman of the same Company, supervised the operators and conducted periodic inspection of the Company's gasoline and service station, the service station in question inclusive. Explaining his duties and responsibilities and the reason for the loan, Tiongson said: "mainly of the supervision of sales or (of) our dealers and rountinary inspection of the equipment loaned by the Company" (t.s.n., 107); "we merely inquire about how the equipments are, whether they have complaints, and whether if said equipments are in proper order . . .", (t.s.n., 110); station equipments are "loaned for the exclusive use of the dealer on condition that all supplies to be sold by said dealer should be exclusively Shell, so as a concession we loan equipments for their use . . .," "for the proper functioning of the equipments, we answer and see to it that the equipments are in good running order usable condition . . .," "with respect to the public." (t.s.n., 111-112). De la Fuente, as operator, was given special prices by the Company for the gasoline products sold therein. Exhibit 1 Shell, which was a receipt by Antonio Tiongson and signed by the De la Fuente, acknowledging the delivery of equipments of the gasoline and service station in question was subsequently replaced by Exhibit 2 Shell, an official from of the inventory of the equipment which De la Fuente signed above the words: "Agent's signature" And the service station in question had been marked "SHELL", and all advertisements therein bore the same sign. . . .

. . . De la Fuente was the operator of the station "by grace" of the Defendant Company which could and did remove him as it pleased; that all the equipments needed to operate the station was owned by the Defendant Company which took charge of their proper care and maintenance, despite the fact that they were loaned to him; that the Defendant company did not leave the fixing of price for gasoline to De la Fuente; on the other hand, the Defendant company had complete control thereof; and that Tiongson, the sales representative of the Defendant Company, had supervision over De la Fuente in the operation of the station, and in the sale of Defendant Company's products therein. . . . Taking into consideration the fact that the operator owed his position to the company and the latter could remove him or terminate his services at will; that the service station belonged to the company and bore its tradename and the operator sold only the products of the company; that the equipment used by the operator belonged to the company and were just loaned to the operator and the company took charge of their repair and maintenance; that an employee of the company supervised the operator and conducted periodic inspection of the company's gasoline and service station; that the price of the products sold by the operator was fixed by the company and not by the operator; and that the receipt signed by the operator indicated that he was a mere agent, the finding of the Court of Appeals that the operator was an agent of the company and not an independent contractor should not be disturbed. To determine the nature of a contract courts do not have or are not bound to rely upon the name or title given it by the contracting parties, should there be a controversy as to what they really had intended to enter into, but the way the contracting parties do or perform their respective obligation stipulated or agreed upon may be shown and inquired into, and should such performance conflict with the name or title given the contract by the parties, the former must prevail over the latter. It was admitted by the operator of the gasoline and service station that "the car was carefully and centrally placed on the platform of the lifter . . ." and the Court of Appeals found that . . . the fall of Appellant Sison's car from the hydraulic lift and the damage caused therefor, were the result of the jerking and swaying of the lift when the valve was released, and that the jerking was due to some accident and unforeseen shortcoming of the mechanism itself, which caused its faulty or defective operation or functioning, . . . the servicing job on Appellant Sison's automobile was accepted by De la Fuente in the normal and ordinary conduct of his business as operator of his co-appellee's service station, and that the jerking and swaying of the hydraulic lift which caused the fall of the subject car were due to its defective condition, resulting in its faulty operation. . . . As the act of the agent or his employees acting within the scope of his authority is the act of the principal, the breach of the undertaking by the agent is one for which the principal is answerable. Moreover, the company undertook to "answer and see to it that the equipments are in good running order and usable condition;" and the Court of Appeals found that the Company's mechanic failed to make a thorough check up of the hydraulic lifter and the check up made by its mechanic was "merely routine" by raising "the lifter once or twice and after observing that the operator was satisfactory, he (the mechanic) left the place." The latter was negligent and the company must answer for the negligent act of its mechanic which was the cause of the fall of the car from the hydraulic lifter. The judgment under review is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

G.R. No. L-21601

December 17, 1966

NIELSON & COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, defendant-appellee. W. H. Quasha and Associates for plaintiff-appellant. Ponce Enrile, Siguion-Reyna, Montecillo and Belo for defendant-appellee. ZALDIVAR, J.: On February 6, 1958, plaintiff brought this action against defendant before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover certain sums of money representing damages allegedly suffered by the former in view of the refusal of the latter to comply with the terms of a management contract entered into between them on January 30, 1937, including attorney's fees and costs. Defendant in its answer denied the material allegations of the complaint and set up certain special defenses, among them, prescription and laches, as bars against the institution of the present action. After trial, during which the parties presented testimonial and numerous documentary evidence, the court a quorendered a decision dismissing the complaint with costs. The court stated that it did not find sufficient evidence to establish defendant's counterclaim and so it likewise dismissed the same. The present appeal was taken to this Court directly by the plaintiff in view of the amount involved in the case. The facts of this case, as stated in the decision appealed from, are hereunder quoted for purposes of this decision: It appears that the suit involves an operating agreement executed before World War II between the plaintiff and the defendant whereby the former operated and managed the mining properties owned by the latter for a management fee of P2,500.00 a month and a 10% participation in the net profits resulting from the operation of the mining properties. For brevity and convenience, hereafter the plaintiff shall be referred to as NIELSON and the defendant, LEPANTO. The antecedents of the case are: The contract in question (Exhibit `C') was made by the parties on January 30, 1937 for a period of five (5) years. In the latter part of 1941, the parties agreed to renew the contract for another period of five (5) years, but in the meantime, the Pacific War broke out in December, 1941. In January, 1942 operation of the mining properties was disrupted on account of the war. In February of 1942, the mill, power plant, supplies on hand, equipment, concentrates on hand and mines, were destroyed upon orders of the United States Army, to prevent their utilization by the invading Japanese Army. The Japanese forces thereafter occupied the mining properties, operated the mines during the continuance of the war, and who were ousted from the mining properties only in August of 1945. After the mining properties were liberated from the Japanese forces, LEPANTO took possession thereof and embarked in rebuilding and reconstructing the mines and mill; setting up new organization; clearing the mill site; repairing the mines; erecting staff quarters and bodegas and repairing existing structures; installing new machinery and equipment; repairing roads and maintaining the same; salvaging equipment and storing the same within the bodegas; doing police work necessary to take care of the materials and equipment recovered; repairing and renewing the water system; and remembering (Exhibits "D" and "E"). The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the mine and mill was not completed until 1948 (Exhibit "F"). On June 26, 1948 the mines resumed operation under the exclusive management of LEPANTO (Exhibit "F-l"). Shortly after the mines were liberated from the Japanese invaders in 1945, a disagreement arose between NIELSON and LEPANTO over the status of the operating contract in question which as renewed expired in 1947. Under the terms thereof, the management contract shall remain in suspense in case fortuitous event or force majeure, such as war or civil commotion, adversely affects the work of mining and milling.

"In the event of inundations, floodings of mine, typhoon, earthquake or any other force majeure, war, insurrection, civil commotion, organized strike, riot, injury to the machinery or other event or cause reasonably beyond the control of NIELSON and which adversely affects the work of mining and milling; NIELSON shall report such fact to LEPANTO and without liability or breach of the terms of this Agreement, the same shall remain in suspense, wholly or partially during the terms of such inability." (Clause II of Exhibit "C"). NIELSON held the view that, on account of the war, the contract was suspended during the war; hence the life of the contract should be considered extended for such time of the period of suspension. On the other hand, LEPANTO contended that the contract should expire in 1947 as originally agreed upon because the period of suspension accorded by virtue of the war did not operate to extend further the life of the contract. No understanding appeared from the record to have been bad by the parties to resolve the disagreement. In the meantime, LEPANTO rebuilt and reconstructed the mines and was able to bring the property into operation only in June of 1948, . . . . Appellant in its brief makes an alternative assignment of errors depending on whether or not the management contract basis of the action has been extended for a period equivalent to the period of suspension. If the agreement is suspended our attention should be focused on the first set of errors claimed to have been committed by the court a quo; but if the contrary is true, the discussion will then be switched to the alternative set that is claimed to have been committed. We will first take up the question whether the management agreement has been extended as a result of the supervening war, and after this question shall have been determined in the sense sustained by appellant, then the discussion of the defense of laches and prescription will follow as a consequence. The pertinent portion of the management contract (Exh. C) which refers to suspension should any event constituting force majeure happen appears in Clause II thereof which we quote hereunder: In the event of inundations, floodings of the mine, typhoon, earthquake or any other force majeure, war, insurrection, civil commotion, organized strike, riot, injury to the machinery or other event or cause reasonably beyond the control of NIELSON and which adversely affects the work of mining and milling; NIELSON shall report such fact to LEPANTO and without liability or breach of the terms of this Agreement, the same shall remain in suspense, wholly or partially during the terms of such inability. A careful scrutiny of the clause above-quoted will at once reveal that in order that the management contract may be deemed suspended two events must take place which must be brought in a satisfactory manner to the attention of defendant within a reasonable time, to wit: (1) the event constituting the force majeure must be reasonably beyond the control of Nielson, and (2) it must adversely affect the work of mining and milling the company is called upon to undertake. As long as these two condition exist the agreement is deem suspended. Does the evidence on record show that these two conditions had existed which may justify the conclusion that the management agreement had been suspended in the sense entertained by appellant? Let us go to the evidence. It is a matter that this Court can take judicial notice of that war supervened in our country and that the mines in the Philippines were either destroyed or taken over by the occupation forces with a view to their operation. The Lepanto mines were no exception for not was the mine itself destroyed but the mill, power plant, supplies on hand, equipment and the like that were being used there were destroyed as well. Thus, the following is what appears in the Lepanto 1 Company Mining Report dated March 13, 1946 submitted by its President C. A. DeWitt to the defendant: "In February of 1942, our mill, power plant, supplies on hand, equipment, concentrates on hand, and mine, were destroyed upon orders of the U.S. Army to prevent their utilization by the enemy." The report also mentions the report submitted by Mr. Blessing, an official of Nielson, that "the original mill was destroyed in 1942" and "the original power plant and all the installed equipment were destroyed in 1942." It is then undeniable that beginning February, 1942 the operation of the Lepanto mines stopped or became suspended as a result of the destruction of the mill, power plant and other important equipment necessary for such operation in view of a cause which was clearly beyond the control of Nielson and that as a consequence such destruction adversely affected the work of mining and milling which the latter was called upon to undertake under the management contract. Consequently, by virtue of the very terms of said contract the same may be deemed suspended from February, 1942 and as of that month the contract still had 60 months to go.

On the other hand, the record shows that the defendant admitted that the occupation forces operated its mining 2 properties subject of the management contract, and from the very report submitted by President DeWitt it appears that the date of the liberation of the mine was August 1, 1945 although at the time there were still many booby 3 traps. Similarly, in a report submitted by the defendant to its stockholders dated August 25, 1948, the following appears: "Your Directors take pleasure in reporting that June 26, 1948 marked the official return to operations of this 4 Company of its properties in Mankayan, Mountain Province, Philippines." It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing that the Lepanto mines were liberated on August 1, 1945, but because of the period of rehabilitation and reconstruction that had to be made as a result of the destruction of the mill, power plant and other necessary equipment for its operation it cannot be said that the suspension of the contract ended on that date. Hence, the contract must still be deemed suspended during the succeeding years of reconstruction and rehabilitation, and this period can only be said to have ended on June 26, 1948 when, as reported by the defendant, the company officially resumed the mining operations of the Lepanto. It should here be stated that this period of 5 suspension from February, 1942 to June 26, 1948 is the one urged by plaintiff. It having been shown that the operation of the Lepanto mines on the part of Nielson had been suspended during the period set out above within the purview of the management contract, the next question that needs to be determined is the effect of such suspension. Stated in another way, the question now to be determined is whether such suspension had the effect of extending the period of the management contract for the period of said suspension. To elucidate this matter, we again need to resort to the evidence. For appellant Nielson two witnesses testified, declaring that the suspension had the effect of extending the period of the contract, namely, George T. Scholey and Mark Nestle. Scholey was a mining engineer since 1929, an incorporator, general manager and director of Nielson and Company; and for some time he was also the vicepresident and director of the Lepanto Company during the pre-war days and, as such, he was an officer of both appellant and appellee companies. As vice-president of Lepanto and general manager of Nielson, Scholey participated in the negotiation of the management contract to the extent that he initialed the same both as witness and as an officer of both corporations. This witness testified in this case to the effect that the standard force majeure clause embodied in the management contract was taken from similar mining contracts regarding mining operations and the understanding regarding the nature and effect of said clause was that when there is suspension of the operation that suspension meant the extension of the contract. Thus, to the question, "Before the war, what was the understanding of the people in the particular trend of business with respect to the force majeure clause?", 6 Scholey answered: "That was our understanding that the suspension meant the extension of time lost." Mark Nestle, the other witness, testified along similar line. He had been connected with Nielson since 1937 until the time he took the witness stand and had been a director, manager, and president of the same company. When he was propounded the question: "Do you know what was the custom or usage at that time in connection with force majeure clause?", Nestle answered, "In the mining world the force majeure clause is generally considered. When a calamity comes up and stops the work like in war, flood, inundation or fire, etc., the work is suspended for the duration of the calamity, and the period of the contract is extended after the calamity is over to enable the person to 7 do the big work or recover his money which he has invested, or accomplish what his obligation is to a third person ." And the above testimonial evidence finds support in the very minutes of the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Lepanto Company issued on March 10, 1945 which was then chairmaned by Atty. C. A. DeWitt. We read the following from said report: The Chairman also stated that the contract with Nielson and Company would soon expire if the obligations were not suspended, in which case we should have to pay them the retaining fee of P2,500.00 a month. He believes however, that there is a provision in the contract suspending the effects thereof in cases like the present, and that even if it were not there, the law itself would suspend the operations of the contract on account of the war. Anyhow, he stated, we shall have no difficulty in solving satisfactorily any problem we 8 may have with Nielson and Company. Thus, we can see from the above that even in the opinion of Mr. DeWitt himself, who at the time was the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Lepanto Company, the management contract would then expire unless the period therein rated is suspended but that, however, he expressed the belief that the period was extended because of the provision contained therein suspending the effects thereof should any of the case of force majeure happen like in the present case, and that even if such provision did not exist the law would have the effect of suspending it on account of the war. In substance, Atty. DeWitt expressed the opinion that as a result of the suspension of the mining operation because of the effects of the war the period of the contract had been extended.

Contrary to what appellant's evidence reflects insofar as the interpretation of the force majeure clause is concerned, however, appellee gives Us an opposite interpretation invoking in support thereof not only a letter Atty. DeWitt sent to 9 Nielson on October 20, 1945, wherein he expressed for the first time an opinion contrary to what he reported to the Board of Directors of Lepanto Company as stated in the portion of the minutes of its Board of Directors as quoted above, but also the ruling laid down by our Supreme Court in some cases decided sometime ago, to the effect that the war does not have the effect of extending the term of a contract that the parties may enter into regarding a particular transaction, citing in this connection the cases of Victorias Planters Association v. Victorias Milling Company, 51 O.G. 4010; Rosario S. Vda. de Lacson, et al. v. Abelardo G. Diaz, 87 Phil. 150; andLo Ching y So Young Chong Co. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 81 Phil. 601. To bolster up its theory, appellee also contends that the evidence regarding the alleged custom or usage in mining contract that appellant's witnesses tried to introduce was incompetent because (a) said custom was not specifically pleaded; (b) Lepanto made timely and repeated objections to the introduction of said evidence; (c) Nielson failed to show the essential elements of usage which must be shown to exist before any proof thereof can be given to affect the contract; and (d) the testimony of its witnesses cannot prevail over the very terms of the management contract which, as a rule, is supposed to contain all the terms and conditions by which the parties intended to be bound. It is here necessary to analyze the contradictory evidence which the parties have presented regarding the interpretation of the force majeure clause in the management contract. At the outset, it should be stated that, as a rule, in the construction and interpretation of a document the intention of the parties must be sought (Rule 130, Section 10, Rules of Court). This is the basic rule in the interpretation of contracts because all other rules are but ancilliary to the ascertainment of the meaning intended by the parties. And once this intention has been ascertained it becomes an integral part of the contract as though it had been originally expressed therein in unequivocal terms (Shoreline Oil Corp. v. Guy, App. 189, So., 348, cited in 17A C.J.S., p. 47). How is this intention determined? One pattern is to ascertain the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties in relation to the transaction under consideration (Article 1371, Civil Code). In this particular case, it is worthy of note what Atty. C. A. DeWitt has stated in the special meeting of the Board of Directors of Lepanto in the portion of the minutes already quoted above wherein, as already stated, he expressed the opinion that the life of the contract, if not extended, would last only until January, 1947 and yet he said that there is a provision in the contract that the war had the effect of suspending the agreement and that the effect of that suspension was that the agreement would have to continue with the result that Lepanto would have to pay the monthly retaining fee of P2,500.00. And this belief that the war suspended the agreement and that the suspension meant its extension was so firm that he went to the extent that even if there was no provision for suspension in the agreement the law itself would suspend it. It is true that Mr. DeWitt later sent a letter to Nielson dated October 20, 1945 wherein apparently he changed his mind because there he stated that the contract was merely suspended, but not extended, by reason of the war, contrary to the opinion he expressed in the meeting of the Board of Directors already adverted to, but between the two opinions of Atty. DeWitt We are inclined to give more weight and validity to the former not only because such was given by him against his own interest but also because it was given before the Board of Directors of Lepanto and in the presence, 10 of some Nielson officials who, on that occasion were naturally led to believe that that was the true meaning of the suspension clause, while the second opinion was merely self-serving and was given as a mere afterthought. Appellee also claims that the issue of true intent of the parties was not brought out in the complaint, but anent this matter suffice it to state that in paragraph No. 19 of the complaint appellant pleaded that the contract was 11 extended. This is a sufficient allegation considering that the rules on pleadings must as a rule be liberally construed. It is likewise noteworthy that in this issue of the intention of the parties regarding the meaning and usage concerning the force majeure clause, the testimony adduced by appellant is uncontradicted. If such were not true, appellee should have at least attempted to offer contradictory evidence. This it did not do. Not even Lepanto's President, Mr. V. E. Lednicky who took the witness stand, contradicted said evidence. In holding that the suspension of the agreement meant the extension of the same for a period equivalent to the suspension, We do not have the least intention of overruling the cases cited by appellee. We simply want to say that the ruling laid down in said cases does not apply here because the material facts involved therein are not the same as those obtaining in the present. The rule of stare decisis cannot be invoked where there is no analogy between the material facts of the decision relied upon and those of the instant case.

Thus, in Victorias Planters Association vs. Victorias Milling Company, 51 O.G. 4010, there was no evidence at all regarding the intention of the parties to extend the contract equivalent to the period of suspension caused by the war. Neither was there evidence that the parties understood the suspension to mean extension; nor was there evidence of usage and custom in the industry that the suspension meant the extension of the agreement. All these matters, however, obtain in the instant case. Again, in the case of Rosario S. Vda. de Lacson vs. Abelardo G. Diaz, 87 Phil. 150, the issue referred to the interpretation of a pre-war contract of lease of sugar cane lands and the liability of the lessee to pay rent during and immediately following the Japanese occupation and where the defendant claimed the right of an extension of the lease to make up for the time when no cane was planted. This Court, in holding that the years which the lessee could not use the land because of the war could not be discounted from the period agreed upon, held that "Nowhere is there any insinuation that the defendant-lessee was to have possession of lands for seven years excluding years on which he could not harvest sugar." Clearly, this ratio decidendi is not applicable to the case at bar wherein there is evidence that the parties understood the "suspension clause by force majeure" to mean the extension of the period of agreement. Lastly, in the case of Lo Ching y So Young Chong Co. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 81 Phil. 601, appellant leased a building from appellee beginning September 13, 1940 for three years, renewable for two years. The lessee's possession was interrupted in February, 1942 when he was ousted by the Japanese who turned the same over to German Otto Schulze, the latter occupying the same until January, 1945 upon the arrival of the liberation forces. Appellant contended that the period during which he did not enjoy the leased premises because of his dispossession by the Japanese had to be deducted from the period of the lease, but this was overruled by this Court, reasoning that such dispossession was merely a simple "perturbacion de merohecho y de la cual no responde el arrendador" under Article 1560 of the old Civil Code Art. 1664). This ruling is also not applicable in the instant case because in that case there was no evidence of the intention of the parties that any suspension of the lease by force majeure would be understood to extend the period of the agreement. In resume, there is sufficient justification for Us to conclude that the cases cited by appellee are inapplicable because the facts therein involved do not run parallel to those obtaining in the present case. We shall now consider appellee's defense of laches. Appellee is correct in its contention that the defense of laches applies independently of prescription. Laches is different from the statute of limitations. Prescription is concerned with the fact of delay, whereas laches is concerned with the effect of delay. Prescription is a matter of time; laches is principally a question of inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on some change in the condition of the property or the relation of the parties. Prescription is statutory; laches is not. Laches applies in equity, whereas prescription applies at law. Prescription is based on fixed time, laches is not. (30 C.J.S., p. 522; See also Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. 2, 5th ed., p. 177). The question to determine is whether appellant Nielson is guilty of laches within the meaning contemplated by the authorities on the matter. In the leading case of Go Chi Gun, et al. vs. Go Cho, et al., 96 Phil. 622, this Court enumerated the essential elements of laches as follows: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred. Are these requisites present in the case at bar? The first element is conceded by appellant Nielson when it claimed that defendant refused to pay its management fees, its percentage of profits and refused to allow it to resume the management operation. Anent the second element, while it is true that appellant Nielson knew since 1945 that appellee Lepanto has refused to permit it to resume management and that since 1948 appellee has resumed operation of the mines and it filed its complaint only on February 6, 1958, there being apparent delay in filing the present action, We find the delay justified and as such cannot constitute laches. It appears that appellant had not abandoned its right to operate the mines for 12 even before the termination of the suspension of the agreement as early as January 20, 1946 and even before

March 10, 1945, it already claimed its right to the extension of the contract, and it pressed its claim for the balance 14 of its share in the profits from the 1941 operation by reason of which negotiations had taken place for the settlement 15 of the claim and it was only on June 25, 1957 that appellee finally denied the claim. There is, therefore, only a period of less than one year that had elapsed from the date of the final denial of the claim to the date of the filing of the complaint, which certainly cannot be considered as unreasonable delay. The third element of laches is absent in this case. It cannot be said that appellee Lepanto did not know that appellant would assert its rights on which it based suit. The evidence shows that Nielson had been claiming for some time its rights under the contract, as already shown above. Neither is the fourth element present, for if there has been some delay in bringing the case to court it was mainly due to the attempts at arbitration and negotiation made by both parties. If Lepanto's documents were lost, it was not caused by the delay of the filing of the suit but because of the war. Another reason why appellant Nielson cannot be held guilty of laches is that the delay in the filing of the complaint in the present case was the inevitable of the protracted negotiations between the parties concerning the settlement of 16 their differences. It appears that Nielson asked for arbitration which was granted. A committee consisting of Messrs. DeWitt, Farnell and Blessing was appointed to act on said differences but Mr. DeWitt always tried to evade the 17 issue until he was taken ill and died. Mr. Farnell offered to Nielson the sum of P13,000.58 by way of compromise of 18 all its claim arising from the management contract but apparently the offer was refused. Negotiations continued with 19 the exchange of letters between the parties but with no satisfactory result. It can be said that the delay due to protracted negotiations was caused by both parties. Lepanto, therefore, cannot be permitted to take advantage of such delay or to question the propriety of the action taken by Nielson. The defense of laches is an equitable one and equity should be applied with an even hand. A person will not be permitted to take advantage of, or to question the validity, or propriety of, any act or omission of another which was committed or omitted upon his own request or was caused by his conduct (R. H. Stearns Co. vs. United States, 291 U.S. 54, 78 L. Ed. 647, 54 S. Ct., 325; United States vs. Henry Prentiss & Co., 288 U.S. 73, 77 L. Ed., 626, 53 S. Ct., 283). Had the action of Nielson prescribed? The court a quo held that the action of Nielson is already barred by the statute of limitations, and that ruling is now assailed by the appellant in this appeal. In urging that the court a quoerred in reaching that conclusion the appellant has discussed the issue with reference to particular claims. The first claim is with regard to the 10% share in profits of 1941 operations. Inasmuch as appellee Lepanto alleges that the correct basis of the computation of the sharing in the net profits shall be as provided for in Clause V of the Management Contract, while appellant Nielson maintains that the basis should be what is contained in the minutes of the special meeting of the Board of Directors of Lepanto on August 21, 1940, this question must first be elucidated before the main issue is discussed. The facts relative to the matter of profit sharing follow: In the management contract entered into between the parties on January 30, 1937, which was renewed for another five years, it was stipulated that Nielson would receive a compensation of P2,500.00 a month plus 10% of the net profits from the operation of the properties for the preceding month. In 1940, a dispute arose regarding the computation of the 10% share of Nielson in the profits. The Board of Directors of Lepanto, realizing that the mechanics of the contract was unfair to Nielson, authorized its President to enter into an agreement with Nielson modifying the pertinent provision of the contract effective January 1, 1940 in such a way that Nielson shall receive (1) 10% of the dividends declared and paid, when and as paid, during the period of the contract and at the end of each year, (2) 10% of any depletion reserve that may be set up, and (3) 10% 20 of any amount expended during the year out of surplus earnings for capital account. Counsel for the appellee 21 admitted during the trial that the extract of the minutes as found in Exhibit B is a faithful copy from the original. Mr. 22 George Scholey testified that the foregoing modification was agreed upon. Lepanto claims that this new basis of computation should be rejected (1) because the contract was clear on the point of the 10% share and it was so alleged by Nielson in its complaint, and (2) the minutes of the special meeting held on August 21, 1940 was not signed. It appearing that the issue concerning the sharing of the profits had been raised in appellant's complaint and 23 evidence on the matter was introduced the same can be taken into account even if no amendment of the pleading to make it conform to the evidence has been made, for the same is authorized by Section 4, Rule 17, of the old Rules of Court (now Section 5, Rule 10, of the new Rules of Court).

13

Coming now to the question of prescription raised by defendant Lepanto, it is contended by the latter that the period to be considered for the prescription of the claim regarding participation in the profits is only four years, because the modification of the sharing embodied in the management contract is merely verbal, no written document to that effect having been presented. This contention is untenable. The modification appears in the minutes of the special meeting of the Board of Directors of Lepanto held on August 21, 1940, it having been made upon the authority of its President, and in said minutes the terms of the modification had been specified. This is sufficient to have the agreement considered, for the purpose of applying the statute of limitations, as a written contract even if the minutes were not signed by the parties (3 A.L.R., 2d, p. 831). It has been held that a writing containing the terms of a contract if adopted by two persons may constitute a contract in writing even if the same is not signed by either of the parties (3 A.L.R., 2d, pp. 812-813). Another authority says that an unsigned agreement the terms of which are embodied in a document unconditionally accepted by both parties is a written contract (Corbin on Contracts, Vol. 1, p. 85) The modification, therefore, made in the management contract relative to the participation in the profits by appellant, as contained in the minutes of the special meeting of the Board of Directors of Lepanto held on August 21, 1940, should be considered as a written contract insofar as the application of the statutes of limitations is concerned. Hence, the action thereon prescribes within ten (10) years pursuant to Section 43 of Act 190. Coming now to the facts, We find that the right of Nielson to its 10% participation in the 1941 operations accrued on December 21, 1941 and the right to commence an action thereon began on January 1, 1942 so that the action must be brought within ten (10) years from the latter date. It is true that the complaint was filed only on February 6, 1958, that is sixteen (16) years, one (1) month and five (5) days after the right of action accrued, but the action has not yet prescribed for various reasons which We will hereafter discuss. The first reason is the operation of the Moratorium Law, for appellant's claim is undeniably a claim for money. Said claim accrued on December 31, 1941, and Lepanto is a war sufferer. Hence the claim was covered by Executive Order No. 32 of March 10, 1945. It is well settled that the operation of the Moratorium Law suspends the running of the statue of limitations (Pacific Commercial Co. vs. Aquino, G.R. No. L-10274, February 27, 1957). This Court has held that the Moratorium Law had been enforced for eight (8) years, two (2) months and eight (8) days (Tioseco vs. Day, et al., L-9944, April 30, 1957; Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Perez, L-14487, April 29, 1960), and deducting this period from the time that had elapsed since the accrual of the right of action to the date of the filing of the complaint, the extent of which is sixteen (16) years, one (1) month and five (5) days, we would have less than eight (8) years to be counted for purposes of prescription. Hence appellant's action on its claim of 10% on the 1941 profits had not yet prescribed. Another reason that may be taken into account in support of the no-bar theory of appellant is the arbitration clause embodied in the management contract which requires that any disagreement as to any amount of profits before an 24 25 action may be taken to court shall be subject to arbitration. This agreement to arbitrate is valid and binding. It cannot be ignored by Lepanto. Hence Nielson could not bring an action on its participation in the 1941 operations26 profits until the condition relative to arbitration had been first complied with. The evidence shows that an arbitration 27 committee was constituted but it failed to accomplish its purpose on June 25, 1957. From this date to the filing of the complaint the required period for prescription has not yet elapsed. Nielson claims the following: (1) 10% share in the dividends declared in 1941, exclusive of interest, amounting to P17,500.00; (2) 10% in the depletion reserves for 1941; and (3) 10% in the profits for years prior to 1948 amounting to P19,764.70. With regard to the first claim, the Lepanto's report for the calendar year of 1954 shows that it declared a 10% cash dividend in December, 1941, the amount of which is P175,000.00. The evidence in this connection (Exhibits L and O) 29 was admitted without objection by counsel for Lepanto. Nielson claims 10% share in said amount with interest thereon at 6% per annum. The document (Exhibit L) was even recognized by Lepanto's President V. L. 30 Lednicky, and this claim is predicated on the provision of paragraph V of the management contract as modified pursuant to the proposal of Lepanto at the special meeting of the Board of Directors on August 21, 1940 (Exh. B), whereby it was provided that Nielson would be entitled to 10% of any dividends to be declared and paid during the period of the contract. With regard to the second claim, Nielson admits that there is no evidence regarding the amount set aside by Lepanto 31 for depletion reserve for 1941 and so the 10% participation claimed thereon cannot be assessed.
28

Anent the third claim relative to the 10% participation of Nielson on the sum of P197,647.08, which appears in 32 Lepanto's annual report for 1948 and entered as profit for prior years in the statement of income and surplus, which amount consisted "almost in its entirety of proceeds of copper concentrates shipped to the United States during 1947," this claim should to denied because the amount is not "dividend declared and paid" within the purview of the management contract. The fifth assignment of error of appellant refers to the failure of the lower court to order Lepanto to pay its management fees for January, 1942, and for the full period of extension amounting to P150,000.00, or P2,500.00 a month for sixty (60) months, a total of P152,500.00 with interest thereon from the date of judicial demand. It is true that the claim of management fee for January, 1942 was not among the causes of action in the complaint, but inasmuch as the contract was suspended in February, 1942 and the management fees asked for included that of January, 1942, the fact that such claim was not included in a specific manner in the complaint is of no moment because an appellate court may treat the pleading as amended to conform to the evidence where the facts show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief other than what is asked for in the complaint (Alonzo vs. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315). The evidence shows that the last payment made by Lepanto for management fee was for November and December, 33 1941. If, as We have declared, the management contract was suspended beginning February 1942, it follows that Nielson is entitled to the management fee for January, 1942. Let us now come to the management fees claimed by Nielson for the period of extension. In this respect, it has been shown that the management contract was extended from June 27, 1948 to June 26, 1953, or for a period of sixty (60) months. During this period Nielson had a right to continue in the management of the mining properties of Lepanto and Lepanto was under obligation to let Nielson do it and to pay the corresponding management fees. Appellant Nielson insisted in performing its part of the contract but Lepanto prevented it from doing so. Hence, by virtue of Article 1186 of the Civil Code, there was a constructive fulfillment an the part of Nielson of its obligation to manage said mining properties in accordance with the contract and Lepanto had the reciprocal obligation to pay the corresponding management fees and other benefits that would have accrued to Nielson if Lepanto allowed it (Nielson) to continue in the management of the mines during the extended period of five (5) years. We find that the preponderance of evidence is to the effect that Nielson had insisted in managing the mining 34 properties soon after liberation. In the report of Lepanto, submitted to its stockholders for the period from 1941 to March 13, 1946, are stated the activities of Nielson's officials in relation to Nielson's insistence in continuing the management. This report was admitted in evidence without objection. We find the following in the report: Mr. Blessing, in May, 1945, accompanied Clark and Stanford to San Fernando (La Union) to await the liberation of the mines. (Mr. Blessing was the Treasurer and Metallurgist of Nielson). Blessing with Clark and Stanford went to the property on July 16 and found that while the mill site had been cleared of the enemy the latter was still holding the area around the staff houses and putting up a strong defense. As a result, they returned to San Fernando and later went back to the mines on July 26. Mr. Blessing made the report, dated August 6, recommending a program of operation. Mr. Nielson himself spent a day in the mine early in December, 1945 and reiterated the program which Mr. Blessing had outlined. Two or three weeks before the date of the report, Mr. Coldren of the Nielson organization also visited the mine and told President C. A. DeWitt of Lepanto that he thought that the mine could be put in condition for the delivery of the ore within ten (10) days. And according to Mark Nestle, a witness of appellant, Nielson had several men including engineers to do the job in the mines and to resume the work. These engineers were in fact sent to the 35 mine site and submitted reports of what they had done. On the other hand, appellee claims that Nielson was not ready and able to resume the work in the mines, relying mainly on the testimony of Dr. Juan Nabong, former secretary of both Nielson and Lepanto, given in the separate case of Nancy Irving Romero vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (Civil Case No. 652, CFI, Baguio), to the effect that as far as he knew "Nielson and Company had not attempted to operate the Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company because Mr. Nielson was not here in the Philippines after the last war. He came back later," and that Nielson and Company had no money nor stocks with which to start the operation. He was asked by counsel for the appellee if he had testified that way in Civil Case No. 652 of the Court of First Instance of Baguio, and he answered that he did not confirm it fully. When this witness was asked by the same counsel whether he confirmed that testimony, he said that when he testified in that case he was not fully aware of what happened and that after he learned more about the officials of the corporation it was only then that he became aware that Nielson had really sent his men to the mines along with Mr. Blessing and that he was aware of this fact personally. He further said that Mr. 36 Nielson was here in 1945 and "he was going out and contacting his people."

Lepanto admits, in its own brief, that Nielson had really insisted in taking over the management and operation of the mines but that it (Lepanto) unequivocally refuse to allow it. The following is what appears in the brief of the appellee: It was while defendant was in the midst of the rehabilitation work which was fully described earlier, still reeling under the terrible devastation and destruction wrought by war on its mine that Nielson insisted in taking over the management and operation of the mine. Nielson thus put Lepanto in a position where defendant, under the circumstances, had to refuse, as in fact it did, Nielson's insistence in taking over the management and operation because, as was obvious, it was impossible, as a result of the destruction of the mine, for the plaintiff to manage and operate the same and because, as provided in the agreement, the contract was suspended by reason of the war. The stand of Lepanto in disallowing Nielson to assume again 37 the management of the mine in 1945 was unequivocal and cannot be misinterpreted, infra. Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, and Our conclusion that the management contract was extended, We believe that Nielson is entitled to the management fees for the period of extension. Nielson should be awarded on this claim sixty times its monthly pay of P2,500.00, or a total of P150,000.00. In its sixth assignment of error Nielson contends that the lower court erred in not ordering Lepanto to pay it (Nielson) the 10% share in the profits of operation realized during the period of five (5) years from the resumption of its postwar operations of the Mankayan mines, in the total sum of P2,403,053.20 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per 38 annum from February 6, 1958 until full payment. The above claim of Nielson refers to four categories, namely: (1) cash dividends; (2) stock dividends; (3) depletion reserves; and (4) amount expended on capital investment. Anent the first category, Lepanto's report for the calendar year 1954 contains a record of the cash dividends it paid up to the date of said report, and the post-war dividends paid by it corresponding to the years included in the period of extension of the management contract are as follows: POST-WAR 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10% 10% 10% 20% 20% 20% 20% 40% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% November July October December March June September December March May July September December March June TOTAL 1949 1950 1950 1950 1951 1951 1951 1951 1952 1952 1952 1952 1952 1953 1953 P 200,000.00 300,000.00 500,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 P14,000,000.00
39

According to the terms of the management contract as modified, appellant is entitled to 10% of the P14,000,000.00 cash dividends that had been distributed, as stated in the above-mentioned report, or the sum of P1,400,000.00. With regard to the second category, the stock dividends declared by Lepanto during the period of extension of the contract are: On November 28, 1949, the stock dividend declared was 50% of the outstanding authorized capital of P2,000,000.00 of the company, or stock dividends worth P1,000,000.00; and on August 22, 1950, the stock dividends declared was 66-2/3% of the standing authorized capital of P3,000,000.00 of the company, or stock dividends worth 40 P2,000,000.00. Appellant's claim that it should be given 10% of the cash value of said stock dividends with interest thereon at 6% from February 6, 1958 cannot be granted for that would not be in accordance with the management contract which entitles Nielson to 10% of any dividends declared paid, when and as paid. Nielson, therefore, is entitled to 10% of the stock dividends and to the fruits that may have accrued to said stock dividends pursuant to Article 1164 of the Civil Code. Hence to Nielson is due shares of stock worth P100,000.00, as per stock dividends declared on November 28, 1949 and all the fruits accruing to said shares after said date; and also shares of stock worth P200,000.00 as per stock dividends declared on August 20, 1950 and all fruits accruing thereto after said date. Anent the third category, the depletion reserve appearing in the statement of income and surplus submitted by Lepanto corresponding to the years covered by the period of extension of the contract, may be itemized as follows: In 1948, as per Exh. F, p. 36 and Exh. Q, p. 5, the depletion reserve set up was P11,602.80. In 1949, as per Exh. G, p. 49 and Exh. Q, p. 5, the depletion reserve set up was P33,556.07. In 1950, as per Exh. H, p. 37, Exh. Q, p. 6 and Exh. I, p. 37, the depletion reserve set up was P84,963.30. In 1951, as per Exh. I, p. 45, Exh. Q, p. 6, and Exh. J, p. 45, the depletion reserve set up was P129,089.88. In 1952, as per Exh. J, p. 45, Exh. Q, p. 6 and Exh. K p. 41, the depletion reserve was P147,141.54. In 1953, as per Exh. K, p. 41, and Exh. Q, p. 6, the depletion reserve set up as P277,493.25. Regarding the depletion reserve set up in 1948 it should be noted that the amount given was for the whole year. Inasmuch as the contract was extended only for the last half of the year 1948, said amount of P11,602.80 should be divided by two, and so Nielson is only entitled to 10% of the half amounting to P5,801.40. Likewise, the amount of depletion reserve for the year 1953 was for the whole year and since the contract was extended only until the first half of the year, said amount of P277,493.25 should be divided by two, and so Nielson is only entitled to 10% of the half amounting to P138,746.62. Summing up the entire depletion reserves, from the middle of 1948 to the middle of 1953, we would have a total of P539,298.81, of which Nielson is entitled to 10%, or to the sum of P53,928.88. Finally, with regard to the fourth category, there is no figure in the record representing the value of the fixed assets as of the beginning of the period of extension on June 27, 1948. It is possible, however, to arrive at the amount needed by adding to the value of the fixed assets as of December 31, 1947 one-half of the amount spent for capital account 41 in the year 1948. As of December 31, 1947, the value of the fixed assets was P1,061,878.88 and as of December 42 31, 1948, the value of the fixed assets was P3,270,408.07. Hence, the increase in the value of the fixed assets for the year 1948 was P2,208,529.19, one-half of which is P1,104,264.59, which amount represents the expenses for capital account for the first half of the year 1948. If to this amount we add the fixed assets as of December 31, 1947 amounting to P1,061,878.88, we would have a total of P2,166,143.47 which represents the fixed assets at the beginning of the second half of the year 1948. There is also no figure representing the value of the fixed assets when the contract, as extended, ended on June 26, 1953; but this may be computed by getting one-half of the expenses for capital account made in 1953 and adding the 43 same to the value of the fixed assets as of December 31, 1953 is P9,755,840.41 which the value of the fixed assets as of December 31, 1952 is P8,463,741.82, the difference being P1,292,098.69. One-half of this amount is P646,049.34 which would represent the expenses for capital account up to June, 1953. This amount added to the

value of the fixed assets as of December 31, 1952 would give a total of P9,109,791.16 which would be the value of fixed assets at the end of June, 1953. The increase, therefore, of the value of the fixed assets of Lepanto from June, 1948 to June, 1953 is P6,943,647.69, which amount represents the difference between the value of the fixed assets of Lepanto in the year 1948 and in the year 1953, as stated above. On this amount Nielson is entitled to a share of 10% or to the amount of P694,364.76. Considering that most of the claims of appellant have been entertained, as pointed out in this decision, We believe that appellant is entitled to be awarded attorney's fees, especially when, according to the undisputed testimony of Mr. Mark Nestle, Nielson obliged himself to pay attorney's fees in connection with the institution of the present case. In this respect, We believe, considering the intricate nature of the case, an award of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos for attorney's fees would be reasonable. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, We hereby reverse the decision of the court a quo and enter in lieu thereof another, ordering the appellee Lepanto to pay appellant Nielson the different amounts as specified hereinbelow: (1) 10% share of cash dividends of December, 1941 in the amount of P17,500.00, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (2) management fee for January, 1942 in the amount of P2,500.00, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (3) management fees for the sixty-month period of extension of the management contract, amounting to P150,000.00, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint; (4) 10% share in the cash dividends during the period of extension of the management contract, amounting to P1,400,000.00, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (5) 10% of the depletion reserve set up during the period of extension, amounting to P53,928.88, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (6) 10% of the expenses for capital account during the period of extension, amounting to P694,364.76, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (7) to issue and deliver to Nielson and Co., Inc. shares of stock of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. at par value equivalent to the total of Nielson's l0% share in the stock dividends declared on November 28, 1949 and August 22, 1950, together with all cash and stock dividends, if any, as may have been declared and issued subsequent to November 28, 1949 and August 22, 1950, as fruits that accrued to said shares; If sufficient shares of stock of Lepanto's are not available to satisfy this judgment, defendant-appellee shall pay plaintiff-appellant an amount in cash equivalent to the market value of said shares at the time of default (12 C.J.S., p. 130), that is, all shares of the stock that should have been delivered to Nielson before the filing of the complaint must be paid at their market value as of the date of the filing of the complaint; and all shares, if any, that should have been delivered after the filing of the complaint at the market value of the shares at the time Lepanto disposed of all its available shares, for it is only then that Lepanto placed itself in condition of not being able to perform its obligation (Article 1160, Civil Code); (8) the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and (9) the costs. It is so ordered.

G.R. No. 117356 June 19, 2000 VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CONSOLIDATED SUGAR CORPORATION, respondents.

QUISUMBING, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 24, 1994, in CA-G.R. CV No. 31717, as well as the respondent court's resolution of September 30, 1994 modifying said decision. Both decision and resolution amended the judgment dated February 13, 1991, of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 147, in Civil Case No. 90-118.1wphi1.nt The facts of this case as found by both the trial and appellate courts are as follows: St. Therese Merchandising (hereafter STM) regularly bought sugar from petitioner Victorias Milling Co., Inc., (VMC). In the course of their dealings, petitioner issued several Shipping List/Delivery Receipts (SLDRs) to STM as proof of purchases. Among these was SLDR No. 1214M, which gave rise to the instant case. Dated October 16, 1989, SLDR No. 1214M covers 25,000 bags of sugar. Each bag contained 50 kilograms and priced at P638.00 per bag as "per 1 2 sales order VMC Marketing No. 042 dated October 16, 1989." The transaction it covered was a "direct sale." The SLDR also contains an additional note which reads: "subject for (sic) availability of a (sic) stock at NAWACO 3 (warehouse)." On October 25, 1989, STM sold to private respondent Consolidated Sugar Corporation (CSC) its rights in SLDR No. 1214M for P14,750,000.00. CSC issued one check dated October 25, 1989 and three checks postdated November 13, 1989 in payment. That same day, CSC wrote petitioner that it had been authorized by STM to withdraw the sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M. Enclosed in the letter were a copy of SLDR No. 1214M and a letter of authority from STM authorizing CSC "to withdraw for and in our behalf the refined sugar covered by Shipping List/Delivery Receipt4 Refined Sugar (SDR) No. 1214 dated October 16, 1989 in the total quantity of 25,000 bags." On October 27, 1989, STM issued 16 checks in the total amount of P31,900,000.00 with petitioner as payee. The latter, in turn, issued Official Receipt No. 33743 dated October 27, 1989 acknowledging receipt of the said checks in payment of 50,000 bags. Aside from SLDR No. 1214M, said checks also covered SLDR No. 1213. Private respondent CSC surrendered SLDR No. 1214M to the petitioner's NAWACO warehouse and was allowed to withdraw sugar. However, after 2,000 bags had been released, petitioner refused to allow further withdrawals of sugar against SLDR No. 1214M. CSC then sent petitioner a letter dated January 23, 1990 informing it that SLDR No. 1214M had been "sold and endorsed" to it but that it had been refused further withdrawals of sugar from petitioner's 5 warehouse despite the fact that only 2,000 bags had been withdrawn. CSC thus inquired when it would be allowed to withdraw the remaining 23,000 bags. On January 31, 1990, petitioner replied that it could not allow any further withdrawals of sugar against SLDR No. 6 1214M because STM had already withdrawn all the sugar covered by the cleared checks. On March 2, 1990, CSC sent petitioner a letter demanding the release of the balance of 23,000 bags. Seven days later, petitioner reiterated that all the sugar corresponding to the amount of STM's cleared checks had been fully withdrawn and hence, there would be no more deliveries of the commodity to STM's account. Petitioner also noted that CSC had represented itself to be STM's agent as it had withdrawn the 2,000 bags against SLDR No. 1214M "for and in behalf" of STM. On April 27, 1990, CSC filed a complaint for specific performance, docketed as Civil Case No. 90-1118. Defendants were Teresita Ng Sy (doing business under the name of St. Therese Merchandising) and herein petitioner. Since the former could not be served with summons, the case proceeded only against the latter. During the trial, it was discovered that Teresita Ng Go who testified for CSC was the same Teresita Ng Sy who could not be reached 7 through summons. CSC, however, did not bother to pursue its case against her, but instead used her as its witness.

CSC's complaint alleged that STM had fully paid petitioner for the sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M. Therefore, the latter had no justification for refusing delivery of the sugar. CSC prayed that petitioner be ordered to deliver the 23,000 bags covered by SLDR No. 1214M and sought the award of P1,104,000.00 in unrealized profits, P3,000,000.00 as exemplary damages, P2,200,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Petitioner's primary defense a quo was that it was an unpaid seller for the 23,000 bags. Since STM had already drawn in full all the sugar corresponding to the amount of its cleared checks, it could no longer authorize further delivery of sugar to CSC. Petitioner also contended that it had no privity of contract with CSC. Petitioner explained that the SLDRs, which it had issued, were not documents of title, but mere delivery receipts issued pursuant to a series of transactions entered into between it and STM. The SLDRs prescribed delivery of the sugar to the party specified therein and did not authorize the transfer of said party's rights and interests. Petitioner also alleged that CSC did not pay for the SLDR and was actually STM's co-conspirator to defraud it through a misrepresentation that CSC was an innocent purchaser for value and in good faith. Petitioner then prayed that CSC be ordered to pay it the following sums: P10,000,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P1,500,000.00 as attorney's fees. Petitioner also prayed that cross-defendant STM be ordered to pay it P10,000,000.00 in exemplary damages, and P1,500,000.00 as attorney's fees. Since no settlement was reached at pre-trial, the trial court heard the case on the merits. As earlier stated, the trial court rendered its judgment favoring private respondent CSC, as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant Victorias Milling Company: 1) Ordering defendant Victorias Milling Company to deliver to the plaintiff 23,000 bags of refined sugar due under SLDR No. 1214; 2) Ordering defendant Victorias Milling Company to pay the amount of P920,000.00 as unrealized profits, the amount of P800,000.00 as exemplary damages and the amount of P1,357,000.00, which is 10% of the acquisition value of the undelivered bags of refined sugar in the amount of P13,570,000.00, as attorney's fees, plus the costs. SO ORDERED.
9 8

It made the following observations: [T]he testimony of plaintiff's witness Teresita Ng Go, that she had fully paid the purchase price of P15,950,000.00 of the 25,000 bags of sugar bought by her covered by SLDR No. 1214 as well as the purchase price of P15,950,000.00 for the 25,000 bags of sugar bought by her covered by SLDR No. 1213 on the same date, October 16, 1989 (date of the two SLDRs) is duly supported by Exhibits C to C-15 inclusive which are post-dated checks dated October 27, 1989 issued by St. Therese Merchandising in favor of Victorias Milling Company at the time it purchased the 50,000 bags of sugar covered by SLDR No. 1213 and 1214. Said checks appear to have been honored and duly credited to the account of Victorias Milling Company because on October 27, 1989 Victorias Milling Company issued official receipt no. 34734 in favor of St. Therese Merchandising for the amount of P31,900,000.00 (Exhibits B and B-1). The testimony of Teresita Ng Go is further supported by Exhibit F, which is a computer printout of defendant Victorias Milling Company showing the quantity and value of the purchases made by St. Therese Merchandising, the SLDR no. issued to cover the purchase, the official receipt no. and the status of payment. It is clear in Exhibit "F" that with respect to the sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214 the same has been fully paid as indicated by the word "cleared" appearing under the column of "status of payment." On the other hand, the claim of defendant Victorias Milling Company that the purchase price of the 25,000 bags of sugar purchased by St. Therese Merchandising covered by SLDR No. 1214 has not been fully paid is supported only by the testimony of Arnulfo Caintic, witness for defendant Victorias Milling Company. The Court notes that the testimony of Arnulfo Caintic is merely a sweeping barren

assertion that the purchase price has not been fully paid and is not corroborated by any positive evidence. There is an insinuation by Arnulfo Caintic in his testimony that the postdated checks issued by the buyer in payment of the purchase price were dishonored. However, said witness failed to present in Court any dishonored check or any replacement check. Said witness likewise failed to present any bank record showing that the checks issued by the buyer, Teresita Ng Go, in 10 payment of the purchase price of the sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214 were dishonored. Petitioner appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals. On appeal, petitioner averted that the dealings between it and STM were part of a series of transactions involving only one account or one general contract of sale. Pursuant to this contract, STM or any of its authorized agents could withdraw bags of sugar only against cleared checks of STM. SLDR No. 21214M was only one of 22 SLDRs issued to STM and since the latter had already withdrawn its full quota of sugar under the said SLDR, CSC was already precluded from seeking delivery of the 23,000 bags of sugar. Private respondent CSC countered that the sugar purchases involving SLDR No. 1214M were separate and independent transactions and that the details of the series of purchases were contained in a single statement with a consolidated summary of cleared check payments and sugar stock withdrawals because this a more convenient system than issuing separate statements for each purchase. The appellate court considered the following issues: (a) Whether or not the transaction between petitioner and STM involving SLDR No. 1214M was a separate, independent, and single transaction; (b) Whether or not CSC had the capacity to sue on its own on SLDR No. 1214M; and (c) Whether or not CSC as buyer from STM of the rights to 25,000 bags of sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M could compel petitioner to deliver 23,000 bags allegedly unwithdrawn. On February 24, 1994, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision modifying the trial court's judgment, to wit: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby MODIFIES the assailed judgment and order defendant-appellant to: 1) Deliver to plaintiff-appellee 12,586 bags of sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M; 2) Pay to plaintiff-appellee P792,918.00 which is 10% of the value of the undelivered bags of refined sugar, as attorneys fees; 3) Pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.
11

Both parties then seasonably filed separate motions for reconsideration. In its resolution dated September 30, 1994, the appellate court modified its decision to read: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby modifies the assailed judgment and orders defendant-appellant to: (1) Deliver to plaintiff-appellee 23,000 bags of refined sugar under SLDR No. 1214M; (2) Pay costs of suit. SO ORDERED.
12

The appellate court explained the rationale for the modification as follows: There is merit in plaintiff-appellee's position.

Exhibit "F" We relied upon in fixing the number of bags of sugar which remained undelivered as 12,586 cannot be made the basis for such a finding. The rule is explicit that courts should consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was offered. (People v. Abalos, et al, 1 CA Rep 783). The rationale for this is to afford the party against whom the evidence is presented to object thereto if he deems it necessary. Plaintiff-appellee is, therefore, correct in its argument that Exhibit "F" which was offered to prove that checks in the total amount of P15,950,000.00 had been cleared. (Formal Offer of Evidence for Plaintiff; Records p. 58) cannot be used to prove the proposition that 12,586 bags of sugar remained undelivered. Testimonial evidence (Testimonies of Teresita Ng [TSN, 10 October 1990, p. 33] and Marianito L. Santos [TSN, 17 October 1990, pp. 16, 18, and 36]) presented by plaintiff-appellee was to the effect that it had withdrawn only 2,000 bags of sugar from SLDR 1214M, after which it was not allowed to withdraw anymore. Documentary evidence (Exhibit I, Id., p. 78, Exhibit K, Id., p. 80) show that plaintiff-appellee had sent demand letters to defendant-appellant asking the latter to allow it to withdraw the remaining 23,000 bags of sugar from SLDR 1214M. Defendant-appellant, on the other hand, alleged that sugar delivery to the STM corresponded only to the value of cleared checks; and that all sugar corresponded to cleared checks had been withdrawn. Defendantappellant did not rebut plaintiff-appellee's assertions. It did not present evidence to show how many bags of sugar had been withdrawn against SLDR No. 1214M, precisely because of its theory that all sales in question were a series of one single transaction and withdrawal of sugar depended on the clearing of checks paid therefor.1wphi1.nt After a second look at the evidence, We see no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court on 13 this point. Hence, the instant petition, positing the following errors as grounds for review: 1. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that STM's and private respondent's specially informing petitioner that respondent was authorized by buyer STM to withdraw sugar against SLDR No. 1214M "for and in our (STM) behalf." (emphasis in the original) private respondent's withdrawing 2,000 bags of sugar for STM, and STM's empowering other persons as its agents to withdraw sugar against the same SLDR No. 1214M, rendered respondent, like the other persons, an agent of STM as held in Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Realty Corp., 81 SCRA 252, and precluded it from subsequently claiming and proving being an assignee of SLDR No. 1214M and from suing by itself for its enforcement because it was conclusively presumed to be an agent (Sec. 2, Rule 131, Rules of Court) and estopped from doing so. (Art. 1431, Civil Code). 2. The Court of Appeals erred in manifestly and arbitrarily ignoring and disregarding certain relevant and undisputed facts which, had they been considered, would have shown that petitioner was not liable, except for 69 bags of sugar, and which would justify review of its conclusion of facts by this Honorable Court. 3. The Court of Appeals misapplied the law on compensation under Arts. 1279, 1285 and 1626 of the Civil Code when it ruled that compensation applied only to credits from one SLDR or contract and not to those from two or more distinct contracts between the same parties; and erred in denying petitioner's right to setoff all its credits arising prior to notice of assignment from other sales or SLDRs against private respondent's claim as assignee under SLDR No. 1214M, so as to extinguish or reduce its liability to 69 bags, because the law on compensation applies precisely to two or more distinct contracts between the same parties (emphasis in the original). 4. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the settlement or liquidation of accounts in Exh. "F" between petitioner and STM, respondent's admission of its balance, and STM's acquiescence thereto by silence for almost one year did not render Exh. "F" an account stated and its balance binding. 5. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the conditions of the assigned SLDR No. 1214, namely, (a) its subject matter being generic, and (b) the sale of sugar being subject to its availability at the Nawaco warehouse, made the sale conditional and prevented STM or private respondent

from acquiring title to the sugar; and the non-availability of sugar freed petitioner from further obligation. 6. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the "clean hands" doctrine precluded respondent 14 from seeking judicial reliefs (sic) from petitioner, its only remedy being against its assignor." Simply stated, the issues now to be resolved are: (1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that CSC was an agent of STM and hence, estopped to sue upon SLDR No. 1214M as an assignee. (2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the law on compensation to the transaction under SLDR No. 1214M so as to preclude petitioner from offsetting its credits on the other SLDRs. (3) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that the sale of sugar under SLDR No. 1214M was a conditional sale or a contract to sell and hence freed petitioner from further obligations. (4) Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error of law in not applying the "clean hands doctrine" to preclude CSC from seeking judicial relief. The issues will be discussed in seriatim. Anent the first issue, we find from the records that petitioner raised this issue for the first time on appeal. It is settled that an issue which was not raised during the trial in the court below could not be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due 15 process. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals opted to address this issue, hence, now a matter for our consideration. Petitioner heavily relies upon STM's letter of authority allowing CSC to withdraw sugar against SLDR No. 1214M to show that the latter was STM's agent. The pertinent portion of said letter reads: This is to authorize Consolidated Sugar Corporation or its representative to withdrawn for and in our behalf (stress supplied) the refined sugar covered by Shipping List/Delivery Receipt = Refined 16 Sugar (SDR) No. 1214 dated October 16, 1989 in the total quantity of 25,000 bags. The Civil Coed defines a contract of agency as follows: Art. 1868. By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. It is clear from Article 1868 that the basis of agency is representation. On the part of the principal, there must be an 18 19 actual intention to appoint or an intention naturally inferable from his words or actions; and on the part of the 20 agent, there must be an intention to accept the appointment and act on it, and in the absence of such intent, there is 21 generally no agency. One factor which most clearly distinguished agency from other legal concepts is control; one person the agent agrees to act under the control or direction of another the principal. Indeed, the very word 22 "agency" has come to connote control by the principal. The control factor, more than any other, has caused the 23 courts to put contracts between principal and agent in a separate category. The Court of Appeals, in finding that CCS, was not an agent of STM, opined: This Court has ruled that where the relation of agency is dependent upon the acts of the parties, the law makes no presumption of agency, and it is always a fact to be proved, with the burden of proof resting upon the persons alleging the agency, to show not only the fact of its existence, but also its nature and extent (Antonio vs. Enriquez [CA], 51 O.G. 3536]. Here, defendant-appellant failed to sufficiently established the existence of an agency relation between plaintiff-appellee and STM. The fact alone that it (STM) had authorized withdrawal of sugar by plaintiff-appellee "for and
17

in our (STM's) behalf" should not be eyed as pointing to the existence of an agency relation. . . It should be viewed in the context of all the circumstances obtaining. Although it would seem STM represented plaintiff-appellee as being its agent by the use of the phrase "for and in our (STM's) behalf" the matter was cleared when on 23 January 1990, plaintiff-appellee informed defendantappellant that SLDFR No. 1214M had been "sold and endorsed" to it by STM (Exhibit I, Records, p. 78). Further, plaintiff-appellee has shown that the 25,000 bags of sugar covered by the SLDR No. 1214M were sold and transferred by STM to it. . . A conclusion that there was a valid sale and transfer to plaintiff-appellee may, therefore, be made thus capacitating plaintiff-appellee to sue in its 24 own name, without need of joining its imputed principal STM as co-plaintiff. In the instant case, it appears plain to us that private respondent CSC was a buyer of the SLDFR form, and not an agent of STM. Private respondent CSC was not subject to STM's control. The question of whether a contract is one of sale or agency depends on the intention of the parties as gathered from the whole scope and effect of the language 25 employed. That the authorization given to CSC contained the phrase "for and in our (STM's) behalf" did not 26 establish an agency. Ultimately, what is decisive is the intention of the parties. That no agency was meant to be established by the CSC and STM is clearly shown by CSC's communication to petitioner that SLDR No. 1214M had 27 been "sold bad endorsed" to it. The use of the word "sold and endorsed" means that STM and CSC intended a contract of sale, and not an agency. Hence, on this score, no error was committed by the respondent appellate court when it held that CSC was not STM's agent and could independently sue petitioner. On the second issue, proceeding from the theory that the transactions entered into between petitioner and STM are but serial parts of one account, petitioner insists that its debt has been offset by its claim for STM's unpaid purchases, 28 pursuant to Article 1279 of the Civil Code. However, the trial court found, and the Court of Appeals concurred, that the purchase of sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M was a separate and independent transaction; it was not a serial part of a single transaction or of one account contrary to petitioner's insistence. Evidence on record shows, without being rebutted, that petitioner had been paid for the sugar purchased under SLDR No. 1214M. Petitioner clearly had the obligation to deliver said commodity to STM or its assignee. Since said sugar had been fully paid for, petitioner and CSC, as assignee of STM, were not mutually creditors and debtors of each other. No reversible error could thereby be imputed to respondent appellate court when it refused to apply Article 1279 of the Civil Code to the present case. Regarding the third issue, petitioner contends that the sale of sugar under SLDR No. 1214M is a conditional sale or a contract to sell, with title to the sugar still remaining with the vendor. Noteworthy, SLDR No. 1214M contains the following terms and conditions: It is understood and agreed that by payment by buyer/trader of refined sugar and/or receipt of this document by the buyer/trader personally or through a representative, title to refined sugar is transferred to buyer/trader and delivery to him/it is deemed effected and completed (stress supplied) and buyer/trader assumes full responsibility 29 therefore. . . The aforequoted terms and conditions clearly show that petitioner transferred title to the sugar to the buyer or his assignee upon payment of the purchase price. Said terms clearly establish a contract of sale, not a contract to sell. 30 Petitioner is now estopped from alleging the contrary. The contract is the law between the contracting parties. And where the terms and conditions so stipulated are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public 31 order, the contract is valid and must be upheld. Having transferred title to the sugar in question, petitioner is now obliged to deliver it to the purchaser or its assignee. As to the fourth issue, petitioner submits that STM and private respondent CSC have entered into a conspiracy to defraud it of its sugar. This conspiracy is allegedly evidenced by: (a) the fact that STM's selling price to CSC was below its purchasing price; (b) CSC's refusal to pursue its case against Teresita Ng Go; and (c) the authority given by the latter to other persons to withdraw sugar against SLDR No. 1214M after she had sold her rights under said SLDR to CSC. Petitioner prays that the doctrine of "clean hands" should be applied to preclude CSC from seeking judicial relief. However, despite careful scrutiny, we find here the records bare of convincing evidence whatsoever to support the petitioner's allegations of fraud. We are now constrained to deem this matter purely speculative, bereft of concrete proof. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.1wphi1.nt

G.R. No. L-34338 November 21, 1984 LOURDES VALERIO LIM, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. RELOVA, J.: Petitioner Lourdes Valerio Lim was found guilty of the crime of estafa and was sentenced "to suffer an imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day as minimum to two (2) years and four (4) months as maximum, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P559.50, with subsidize imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs." (p. 14, Rollo) From this judgment, appeal was taken to the then Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified the penalty imposed by sentencing her "to suffer an indeterminate penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum, to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P550.50 without subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs of suit." (p. 24, Rollo) The question involved in this case is whether the receipt, Exhibit "A", is a contract of agency to sell or a contract of sale of the subject tobacco between petitioner and the complainant, Maria de Guzman Vda. de Ayroso, thereby precluding criminal liability of petitioner for the crime charged. The findings of facts of the appellate court are as follows: ... The appellant is a businesswoman. On January 10, 1966, the appellant went to the house of Maria Ayroso and proposed to sell Ayroso's tobacco. Ayroso agreed to the proposition of the appellant to sell her tobacco consisting of 615 kilos at P1.30 a kilo. The appellant was to receive the overprice for which she could sell the tobacco. This agreement was made in the presence of plaintiff's sister, Salud G. Bantug. Salvador Bantug drew the document, Exh. A, dated January 10, 1966, which reads: To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that I have received from Mrs. Maria de Guzman Vda. de Ayroso. of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, six hundred fifteen kilos of leaf tobacco to be sold at Pl.30 per kilo. The proceed in the amount of Seven Hundred Ninety Nine Pesos and 50/100 (P 799.50) will be given to her as soon as it was sold. This was signed by the appellant and witnessed by the complainant's sister, Salud Bantug, and the latter's maid, Genoveva Ruiz. The appellant at that time was bringing a jeep, and the tobacco was loaded in the jeep and brought by the appellant. Of the total value of P799.50, the appellant had paid to Ayroso only P240.00, and this was paid on three different times. Demands for the payment of the balance of the value of the tobacco were made upon the appellant by Ayroso, and particularly by her sister, Salud Bantug. Salud Bantug further testified that she had gone to the house of the appellant several times, but the appellant often eluded her; and that the "camarin" the appellant was empty. Although the appellant denied that demands for payment were made upon her, it is a fact that on October 19, 1966, she wrote a letter to Salud Bantug which reads as follows: Dear Salud, Hindi ako nakapunta dian noon a 17 nitong nakaraan, dahil kokonte pa ang nasisingil kong pera, magintay ka hanggang dito sa linggo ito at tiak na ako ay magdadala sa iyo. Gosto ko Salud ay makapagbigay man lang ako ng marami para hindi masiadong kahiyahiya sa iyo. Ngayon kung gosto mo ay kahit konte muna ay bibigyan kita. Pupunta lang kami ni Mina sa Maynila ngayon. Salud kung talagang kailangan mo ay bukas ay dadalhan kita ng pera.

Medio mahirap ang maningil sa palengke ng Cabanatuan dahil nagsisilipat ang mga suki ko ng puesto. Huwag kang mabahala at tiyak na babayaran kita. Patnubayan tayo ng mahal na panginoon Dios. (Exh. B).

Pursuant to this letter, the appellant sent a money order for P100.00 on October 24, 1967, Exh. 4, and another for P50.00 on March 8, 1967; and she paid P90.00 on April 18, 1967 as evidenced by the receipt Exh. 2, dated April 18, 1967, or a total of P240.00. As no further amount was paid, the complainant filed a complaint against the appellant for estafa. (pp. 14, 15, 16, Rollo) In this petition for review by certiorari, Lourdes Valerio Lim poses the following questions of law, to wit: 1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals was legally right in holding that the foregoing document (Exhibit "A") "fixed a period" and "the obligation was therefore, immediately demandable as soon as the tobacco was sold" (Decision, p. 6) as against the theory of the petitioner that the obligation does not fix a period, but from its nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended in which case the only action that can be maintained is a petition to ask the court to fix the duration thereof; 2. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals was legally right in holding that "Art. 1197 of the New Civil Code does not apply" as against the alternative theory of the petitioner that the fore. going receipt (Exhibit "A") gives rise to an obligation wherein the duration of the period depends upon the will of the debtor in which case the only action that can be maintained is a petition to ask the court to fix the duration of the period; and 3. Whether or not the honorable Court of Appeals was legally right in holding that the foregoing receipt is a contract of agency to sell as against the theory of the petitioner that it is a contract of sale. (pp. 3-4, Rollo) It is clear in the agreement, Exhibit "A", that the proceeds of the sale of the tobacco should be turned over to the complainant as soon as the same was sold, or, that the obligation was immediately demandable as soon as the tobacco was disposed of. Hence, Article 1197 of the New Civil Code, which provides that the courts may fix the duration of the obligation if it does not fix a period, does not apply. Anent the argument that petitioner was not an agent because Exhibit "A" does not say that she would be paid the commission if the goods were sold, the Court of Appeals correctly resolved the matter as follows: ... Aside from the fact that Maria Ayroso testified that the appellant asked her to be her agent in selling Ayroso's tobacco, the appellant herself admitted that there was an agreement that upon the sale of the tobacco she would be given something. The appellant is a businesswoman, and it is unbelievable that she would go to the extent of going to Ayroso's house and take the tobacco with a jeep which she had brought if she did not intend to make a profit out of the transaction. Certainly, if she was doing a favor to Maria Ayroso and it was Ayroso who had requested her to sell her tobacco, it would not have been the appellant who would have gone to the house of Ayroso, but it would have been Ayroso who would have gone to the house of the appellant and deliver the tobacco to the appellant. (p. 19, Rollo) The fact that appellant received the tobacco to be sold at P1.30 per kilo and the proceeds to be given to complainant as soon as it was sold, strongly negates transfer of ownership of the goods to the petitioner. The agreement (Exhibit "A') constituted her as an agent with the obligation to return the tobacco if the same was not sold. ACCORDINGLY, the petition for review on certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. With costs.SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-20871 April 30, 1971 KER & CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. JOSE B. LINGAD, as Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent. Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Solicitor Alejandro B. Afurong and Special Atty. Balbino Gatdula, Jr. for respondent.

FERNANDO, J.: Petitioner Ker & Co., Ltd. would have us reverse a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, holding it liable as a commercial broker under Section 194 (t) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Its plea, notwithstanding the vigorous effort of its counsel, is not sufficiently persuasive. An obstacle, well-nigh insuperable stands in the way. The decision under review conforms to and is in accordance with the controlling doctrine announced in the recent case 1 of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Constantino. The decisive test, as therein set forth, is the retention of the ownership of the goods delivered to the possession of the dealer, like herein petitioner, for resale to customers, the price and terms remaining subject to the control of the firm consigning such goods. The facts, as found by respondent Court, to which we defer, unmistakably indicate that such a situation does exist. The juridical consequences must inevitably follow. We affirm. It was shown that petitioner was assessed by the then Commissioner of Internal Revenue Melecio R. Domingo the sum of P20,272.33 as the commercial broker's percentage tax, surcharge, and compromise penalty for the period from July 1, 1949 to December 31, 1953. There was a request on the part of petitioner for the cancellation of such assessment, which request was turned down. As a result, it filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals. In its answer, the then Commissioner Domingo maintained his stand that petitioner should be taxed in such amount as a commercial broker. In the decision now under review, promulgated on October 19, 1962, the Court of Tax Appeals held petitioner taxable except as to the compromise penalty of P500.00, the amount due from it being fixed at P19,772.33. Such liability arose from a contract of petitioner with the United States Rubber International, the former being referred to as the Distributor and the latter specifically designated as the Company. The contract was to apply to transactions between the former and petitioner, as Distributor, from July 1, 1948 to continue in force until terminated by either 2 party giving to the other sixty days' notice. The shipments would cover products "for consumption in Cebu, Bohol, Leyte, Samar, Jolo, Negros Oriental, and Mindanao except [the] province of Davao", petitioner, as Distributor, being precluded from disposing such products elsewhere than in the above places unless written consent would first be 3 obtained from the Company. Petitioner, as Distributor, is required to exert every effort to have the shipment of the 4 products in the maximum quantity and to promote in every way the sale thereof. The prices, discounts, terms of 5 payment, terms of delivery and other conditions of sale were subject to change in the discretion of the Company. Then came this crucial stipulation: "The Company shall from time to time consign to the Distributor and the Distributor will receive, accept and/or hold upon consignment the products specified under the terms of this agreement in such quantities as in the judgment of the Company may be necessary for the successful solicitation and maintenance of business in the territory, and the Distributor agrees that responsibility for the final sole of all goods delivered shall rest with him. All goods on consignment shall remain the property of the Company until sold by the Distributor to the purchaser or purchasers, but all sales made by the Distributor shall be in his name, in which the sale price of all goods sold less the discount given to the Distributor by the Company in accordance with the provision of paragraph 13 of this agreement, whether or not such sale price shall have been collected by the Distributor from the purchaser or purchasers, shall immediately be paid and remitted by the Distributor to the Company. It is further agreed that this agreement does not constitute Distributor the agent or legal representative 4 of the Company for any purpose whatsoever. Distributor is not granted any right or authority to assume or to create any obligation or responsibility, express or implied, in behalf of or in the name of the Company, or to bind the Company in any manner or thing 6 whatsoever."

All specifications for the goods ordered were subject to acceptance by the Company with petitioner, as Distributor, required to accept such goods shipped as well as to clear the same through customs and to arrange for delivery in its warehouse in Cebu City. Moreover, orders are to be filled in whole or in part from the stocks carried by the 7 Company's neighboring branches, subsidiaries or other sources of Company's brands. Shipments were to be invoiced at prices to be agreed upon, with the customs duties being paid by petitioner, as Distributor, for account of 8 the Company. Moreover, all resale prices, lists, discounts and general terms and conditions of local resale were to 9 be subject to the approval of the Company and to change from time to time in its discretion. The dealer, as Distributor, is allowed a discount of ten percent on the net amount of sales of merchandise made under such 10 agreement. On a date to be determined by the Company, the petitioner, as Distributor, was required to report to it data showing in detail all sales during the month immediately preceding, specifying therein the quantities, sizes and types together with such information as may be required for accounting purposes, with the Company rendering an invoice on sales as described to be dated as of the date of inventory and sales report. As Distributor, petitioner had to make payment on such invoice or invoices on due date with the Company being privileged at its option to terminate 11 and cancel the agreement forthwith upon the failure to comply with this obligation. The Company, at its own expense, was to keep the consigned stock fully insured against loss or damage by fire or as a result of fire, the policy of such insurance to be payable to it in the event of loss. Petitioner, as Distributor, assumed full responsibility with reference to the stock and its safety at all times; and upon request of the Company at any time, it was to render 12 inventory of the existing stock which could be subject to change. There was furthermore this equally tell-tale covenant: "Upon the termination or any cancellation of this agreement all goods held on consignment shall be held by the Distributor for the account of the Company, without expense to the Company, until such time as provision can be 13 made by the Company for disposition." The issue with the Court of Tax Appeals, as with us now, is whether the relationship thus created is one of vendor and vendee or of broker and principal. Not that there would have been the slightest doubt were it not for the categorical denial in the contract that petitioner was not constituted as "the agent or legal representative of the Company for any purpose whatsoever." It would be, however, to impart to such an express disclaimer a meaning it should not possess to ignore what is manifestly the role assigned to petitioner considering the instrument as a whole. That would be to lose sight altogether of what has been agreed upon. The Court of Tax Appeals was not misled in the language of the decision now on appeal: "That the petitioner Ker & Co., Ltd. is, by contractual stipulation, an agent of U.S. Rubber International is borne out by the facts that petitioner can dispose of the products of the Company only to certain persons or entities and within stipulated limits, unless excepted by the contract or by the Rubber Company (Par. 2); that it merely receives, accepts and/or holds upon consignment the products, which remain properties of the latter company (Par. 8); that every effort shall be made by petitioner to promote in every way the sale of the products (Par. 3); that sales made by petitioner are subject to approval by the company (Par. 12); that on dates determined by the rubber company, petitioner shall render a detailed report showing sales during the month (Par. 14); that the rubber company shall invoice the sales as of the dates of inventory and sales report (Par. 14); that the rubber company agrees to keep the consigned goods fully insured under insurance policies payable to it in case of loss (Par. 15); that upon request of the rubber company at any time, petitioner shall render an inventory of the existing stock which may be checked by an authorized representative of the former (Par. 15); and that upon termination or cancellation of the Agreement, all goods held on consignment shall be held by petitioner for the account of the rubber company until their disposition is provided for by the latter (Par. 19). All these circumstances are irreconcilably 14 antagonistic to the idea of an independent merchant." Hence its conclusion: "However, upon analysis of the contract, as a whole, together with the actual conduct of the parties in respect thereto, we have arrived at the 15 conclusion that the relationship between them is one of brokerage or agency." We find ourselves in agreement, notwithstanding the able brief filed on behalf of petitioner by its counsel. As noted at the outset, we cannot heed petitioner's plea for reversal. 1. According to the National Internal Revenue Code, a commercial broker "includes all persons, other than importers, manufacturers, producers, or bona fide employees, who, for compensation or profit, sell or bring about sales or purchases of merchandise for other persons or bring proposed buyers and sellers together, or negotiate freights or other business for owners of vessels or other means of transportation, or for the shippers, or consignors or consignees of freight carried by vessels or other means of transportation. The term includes commission 16 merchants." The controlling decision as to the test to be followed as to who falls within the above definition of a 17 commercial broker is that of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Constantino. In the language of Justice J. B. L. Reyes, who penned the opinion: "Since the company retained ownership of the goods, even as it delivered possession unto the dealer for resale to customers, the price and terms of which were subject to the company's 18 control, the relationship between the company and the dealer is one of agency, ... ." An excerpt from Salisbury v. 19 Brooks cited in support of such a view follows: " 'The difficulty in distinguishing between contracts of sale and the creation of an agency to sell has led to the establishment of rules by the application of which this difficulty may be solved. The decisions say the transfer of title or agreement to transfer it for a price paid or promised is the essence of sale. If such transfer puts the transferee in the attitude or position of an owner and makes him liable to the transferor

as a debtor for the agreed price, and not merely as an agent who must account for the proceeds of a resale, the transaction is a sale; while the essence of an agency to sell is the delivery to an agent, not as his property, but as the property of the principal, who remains the owner and has the right to control sales, fix the price, and terms, demand 20 and receive the proceeds less the agent's commission upon sales made.' " The opinion relied on the work of Mechem on Sales as well as Mechem on Agency. Williston and Tiedman both of whom wrote treatises on Sales, were likewise referred to. Equally relevant is this portion of the Salisbury opinion: "It is difficult to understand or appreciate the necessity or presence of these mutual requirements and obligations on any theory other than that of a contract of agency. Salisbury was to furnish the mill and put the timber owned by him into a marketable condition in the form of lumber; Brooks was to furnish the funds necessary for that purpose, sell the manufactured product, and account therefor to Salisbury upon the specific terms of the agreement, less the compensation fixed by the parties in lieu of interest on the money advanced and for services as agent. These requirements and stipulations are in tent with any other conception of the contract. If it constitutes an agreement to sell, they are meaningless. But they cannot be ignored. They were placed there for some purpose, doubtless as the result of definite antecedent negotiations therefore, 21 consummated by the final written expression of the agreement." Hence the Constantino opinion could categorically affirm that the mere disclaimer in a contract that an entity like petitioner is not "the agent or legal representative for any purpose whatsoever" does not suffice to yield the conclusion that it is an independent merchant if the control over the goods for resale of the goods consigned is pervasive in character. The Court of Tax Appeals decision now under review pays fealty to such an applicable doctrine. 2. No merit therefore attaches to the first error imputed by petitioner to the Court of Tax Appeals. Neither did such Court fail to appreciate in its true significance the act and conduct pursued in the implementation of the contract by both the United States Rubber International and petitioner, as was contended in the second assignment of error. Petitioner ought to have been aware that there was no need for such an inquiry. The terms of the contract, as noted, speak quite clearly. There is lacking that degree of ambiguity sufficient to give rise to serious doubt as to what was contemplated by the parties. A reading thereof discloses that the relationship arising therefrom was not one of seller and purchaser. If it were thus intended, then it would not have included covenants which in their totality would negate the concept of a firm acquiring as vendee goods from another. Instead, the stipulations were so worded as to lead to no other conclusion than that the control by the United States Rubber International over the goods in question is, in the language of the Constantino opinion, "pervasive". The insistence on a relationship opposed to that apparent from the language employed might even yield the impression that such a mode of construction was resorted to in order that the applicability of a taxing statute might be rendered nugatory. Certainly, such a result is to be avoided. Nor is it to be lost sight of that on a matter left to the discretion of the Court of Tax Appeals which has developed an expertise in view of its function being limited solely to the interpretation of revenue laws, this Court is not prepared to substitute its own judgment unless a grave abuse of discretion is manifest. It would be to frustrate the objective for which administrative tribunals are created if the judiciary, absent such a showing, is to ignore their appraisal on a matter that forms the staple of their specialized competence. While it is to be admitted that counsel for petitioner did scrutinize with care the decision under review with a view to exposing what was considered its flaws, it cannot be said that there was such a failure to apply what the law commands as to call for its reversal. Instead, what cannot be denied is that the Court of Tax Appeals reached a result to which the Court in the recent Constantino decision gave the imprimatur of its approval. WHEREFORE, the Court of Tax Appeals decision of October 19, 1962 is affirmed. With costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. L-19265

May 29, 1964

MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR., petitioner, vs. ADELO NOMBRE and PEDRO ESCANLAR, respondents. A. R. Castaeda and M. S. Roxas for petitioner. Amado B. Parreo Law Office for respondents. PAREDES, J.: The case at bar had its origin in Special Proceedings No. 7279 of the CFI of Negros Occidental wherein respondent Adelo Nombre was the duly constituted judicial administrator. On May 1, 1960, Nombre, in his capacity was judicial administrator of the intestate estate subject of the Sp. Proc. stated above, leased one of the properties of the estate (a fishpond identified as Lot No. 1617 of the cadastral survey of Kabankaban, Negros Occidental), to Pedro Escanlar, the other respondent. The terms of the lease was for three (3) years, with a yearly rental of P3,000.00 to expire on May 1, 1963, the transaction having been done, admittedly, without previous authority or approval of the Court where the proceedings was pending. On January 17, 1961, Nombre was removed as administrator by Order of the court and one Sofronio Campillanos was appointed in his stead. The appeal on the Order of Nombre's removal is supposedly pending with the Court of Appeals. Respondent Escanlar was cited for contempt, allegedly for his refusal to surrender the fishpond to the newly appointed administrator. On March 20, 1961, Campillanos filed a motion asking for authority to execute a lease contract of the same fishpond, in favor of petitioner herein, Moises San Diego, Sr., for 5 years from 1961, at a yearly rental of P5,000.00. Escanlar was not notified of such motion. Nombre, the deposed administrator, presented a written opposition to the motion of Campillanos on April 11, 1964, pointing out that the fishpond had been leased by him to Escanlar for 3 years, the period of which was going to expire on May 1, 1963. In a supplemental opposition, he also invited the attention of the Court that to grant the motion of the new administrator would in effect nullify the contract in favor of Escanlar, a person on whom the Court had no jurisdiction. He also intimated that the validity of the lease contract entered into by a judicial administrator, must be recognized unless so declared void in a separate action. The opposition notwithstanding, the Court on April 8, 1961, in effect declared that the contract in favor of Escanlar was null and void, for want of judicial authority and that unless he would offer the same as or better conditions than the prospective lessee, San Diego, there was no good reason why the motion for authority to lease the property to San Diego should not be granted. Nombre moved to reconsider the Order of April 8, stating that Escanlar was willing to increase the rental of P5,000.00, but only after the termination of his original contract. The motion for reconsideration was denied on April 24, 1961, the trial judge stating that the contract in favor of Escanlar was executed in bad faith and was fraudulent because of the imminence of Nombre's removal as administrator, one of the causes of which was his indiscriminate pleasant, of the property with inadequate rentals. From this Order, a petition for Certiorari asking for the annulment of the Orders of April 8 and 24, 1961 was presented by Nombre and Escanlar with the Court of Appeals. A Writ of preliminary injunction was likewise prayed for to restrain the new administrator Campillanos from possessing the fishpond and from executing a new lease contract covering it; requiring him to return the possession thereof to Escanlar, plus damages and attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 and costs. The Court of Appeals issued the injunctive writ and required respondents therein to Answer. Campillanos insisted on the invalidity of the contract in favor of Escanlar; the lower court alleged that it did not exactly annul or invalidate the lease in his questioned orders but suggested merely that Escanlar "may file a separate ordinary action in the Court of general jurisdiction." The Court of Appeals, in dismissing the petition for certiorari, among others said The controlling issue in this case is the legality of the contract of lease entered into by the former administrator Nombre, and Pedro Escanlar on May 1, 1960. Respondents contend that this contract, not having been authorized or approved by the Court, is null and void and cannot be an obstacle to the execution of another of lease by the new administrator, Campillanos. This contention is without merit. ... . It has been held that even in the absence of such special powers, a contract or lease for more than 6 years is not entirely invalid; it is invalid only in so far as it exceeds the sixyear limit (Enrique v. Watson Company, et al., 6 Phil. 84). 1

No such limitation on the power of a judicial administrator to grant a lease of property placed under his custody is provided for in the present law. Under Article 1647 of the present Civil Code, it is only when the lease is to be recorded in the Registry of Property that it cannot be instituted without special authority. Thus, regardless of the period of lease, there is no need of special authority unless the contract is to be recorded in the Registry of Property. As to whether the contract in favor of Escanlar is to be so recorded is not material to our inquiry. 1wph1.t On the contrary, Rule 85, Section 3, of the Rules of Court authorizes a judicial administrator, among other things, to administer the estate of the deceased not disposed of by will. Commenting on this Section in the light of several Supreme Court decisions (Jocson de Hilado v. Nava, 69 Phil. 1; Gamboa v. Gamboa, 68 Phil. 304; Ferraris v. Rodas, 65 Phil. 732; Rodriguez v. Borromeo, 43 Phil. 479), Moran says: "Under this provision, the executor or administrator has the power of administering the estate of the deceased for purposes of liquidation and distribution. He may, therefore, exercise all acts of administration without special authority of the Court. For instance, he may lease the property without securing previously any permission from the court. And where the lease has formally been entered into, the court cannot, in the same proceeding, annul the same, to the prejudice of the lessee, over whose person it had no jurisdiction. The proper remedy would be a separate action by the administrator or the heirs to annul the lease. ... . On September 13, 1961, petitioner herein Moises San Diego, Sr., who was not a party in the case, intervened and moved for a reconsideration of the above judgment. The original parties (the new administrator and respondent judge) also filed Motions for reconsideration, but we do not find them in the record. On November 18, 1961, the Court of Appeals denied the motions for reconsideration. With the denial of the said motions, only San Diego, appealed therefrom, raising legal questions, which center on "Whether a judicial administrator can validly lease property of the estate without prior judicial authority and approval", and "whether the provisions of the New Civil Code on Agency should apply to judicial administrators." The Rules of Court provide that An executor or administrator shall have the right to the possession of the real as well as the personal estate of the deceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and the expenses of administration, and shall administer the estate of the deceased not disposed of by his will. (Sec. 3, Rule 85, old Rules). Lease has been considered an act of administration (Jocson v. Nava; Gamboa v. Gamboa; Rodriguez v. Borromeo; Ferraris v. Rodas, supra). The Civil Code, on lease, provides: If a lease is to be recorded in the Registry of Property, the following persons cannot constitute the same without proper authority, the husband with respect to the wife's paraphernal real estate, the father or guardian as to the property of the minor or ward, and the manager without special power. (Art. 1647). The same Code, on Agency, states: Special powers of attorneys are necessary in the following cases: (8) To lease any real property to another person for more than one year. (Art. 1878) Petitioner contends, that No. 8, Art. 1878 is the limitation to the right of a judicial administrator to lease real property without prior court authority and approval, if it exceeds one year. The lease contract in favor of Escanlar being for 3 years and without such court approval and authority is, therefore, null and void. Upon the other hand, respondents maintain that there is no limitation of such right; and that Article 1878 does not apply in the instant case. We believe that the Court of Appeals was correct in sustaining the validity of the contract of lease in favor of Escanlar, notwithstanding the lack of prior authority and approval. The law and prevailing jurisprudence on the matter militates in favor of this view. While it may be admitted that the duties of a judicial administrator and an agent (petitioner alleges that both act in representative capacity), are in some respects, identical, the provisions on agency (Art. 1878, C.C.), should not apply to a judicial administrator. A judicial administrator is appointed by the Court. He is not only the representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate (Chua Tan v. Del Rosario, 57 Phil. 411). A

judicial administrator before entering into his duties, is required to file a bond. These circumstances are not true in case of agency. The agent is only answerable to his principal. The protection which the law gives the principal, in limiting the powers and rights of an agent, stems from the fact that control by the principal can only be thru agreements, whereas the acts of a judicial administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the appointing court. The observation of former Chief Justice Moran, as quoted in the decision of the Court of Appeals, is indeed sound, and We are not prone to alter the same, at the moment. We, likewise, seriously doubt petitioner's legal standing to pursue this appeal. And, if We consider the fact that after the expiration of the original period of the lease contract executed by respondent Nombre in favor of Escanlar, a new contract in favor of said Escanlar, was executed on May 1, 1963, by the new administrator Campillanos. who, incidentally, did not take any active participation in the present appeal, the right of petitioner to the fishpond becomes a moot and academic issue, which We need not pass upon. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, in all respects, with costs against petitioner Moises San Diego, Sr.