Digest Author: Alyssa Rodriguez

INLAND REALTY v. CA (1997)

Petitioner: INLAND REALTY INVESTMENT SERVICE, INC. and ROMAN M. DE
LOS REYES
Respondent: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. and J.
ARMANDO EDUQUE
Ponencia: HERMOSISIMA, JR., J

DOCTRINE:
***Copied from CLVs outline
Although the ultimate buyer was introduced by the broker to the seller,
nonetheless the broker was not entitled to receive the commission even with
the consummation of the sale because the lapse of the period of more than
one (1) year and five (5) months between the expiration of brokers authority
to sell and the consummation of the sale to the buyer, is significant index of
the brokers non-participation in the really critical events leading to the
consummation of said sale. Broker was not the efficient procuring cause
in bringing about the sale and therefore not entitled to the stipulated
brokers commission.

FACTS:
1. Gregorio Araneta, Inc. (SELLER) granted to Inland Realty
Investment Service, Inc. (BROKER) a 30-day authority to sell its
9,800 shares of stock in Architects' Bldg., Inc.

2. Inland Realty sent a proposal letter to Stanford Microsystems, Inc.
(BUYER) which proposed to buy 9,800 shares offered at P1,000.00
per share or for a total of P9,800,000.00.

3. BROKER reported this to SELLER but found the price offered by
BUYER as too low.

4. Eventually, the sale happened and BROKER was able to sell the
9,800 shares of stock for P13,500,000.00.

5. BROKER demanded from SELLER the payment of their 5% brokers
commission which was declined by SELLER as having no factual or
legal basis.

6. According to SELLER, the sale happened more than one (1) year
and five (5) months after the expiration of the agency contracy and
authority to sell.

7. BROKER insists that SELLER renewed their authority to act as agent
to sell in a letter but they have no evidence of this. All they gave this
court is their word.




ISSUE:

W/N the BROKER is automatically entitled to the stipulated commission
merely upon introducing the SELLER to the BUYER, regardless of the
expiration of the broker's contract of agency and authority to sell.


PROVISION: Section 3, Art. XVI of the 1987 Constitution

RULING + RATIO:
No.


BROKER has nothing to show that they actively served their
principal's interests.

BROKER did not participate in the really critical events leading to the
consummation of said sale (like the negotiations to convince BUYER
to sell at SELLERs asking price, the finalization of the terms and
conditions of the sale, the drafting of the deed of sale, the processing
of pertinent documents, and the delivery of the shares of stock to
Stanford).

Hence, this court affirms that the BROKER has no valid claim for the
brokerage commission.


DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed.