GR No.

164703
Petitioner: Go (under ACG Express Liner) || Respondent: Cordero
GR No. 164747
Petitioner: Cordero || Respondents: Go (under ACG Express Liner), Landicho,
Tecson
Ponente: Villarama, Jr., J.
Facts of the Case:
Mortimer Cordero- VP of Pamana Marketing Cooperative (Pamana), ventured into the
business of marketing inter-island passenger vessels.
Tony Robinson- Australian, Managing Director of Aluminum Fast Ferries Australia
(AFFA), based in Brisbane, Australia
Felipe Landicho and Vincent Tecson- lawyers of Go
Allan Go- owner/ operator of ACG Express Liner of Cebu City
Dennis Padua- Wartsila Philippines
- Robinson signed documents appointing Cordero as the exclusive distributor of
AFFA catamaran and other fast vessels in the Philippines
o Cordero will receive 22.43% commission from the sale of each vessel
- Cordero made a deal with Go, via Landicho and Tecson, to purchase 2 SEACAT
25s, as evidenced by a Memorandum Agreement
- Cordero went to Brisbane twice, once with Go and his family and Landicho to
monitor the process of the building of the vessel wherein he shouldered all the
expenses (airfare, food, hotel accommodations, transportation and
entertainment)
- Cordero spent for long distance telephone calls to Robinson, Go, Landicho and
Tecson
- Cordero found out from Padua that Go was dealing directly with Robinson for a
second catamaran engine
- Go, Landicho and Robinson could not be contacted
- Cordero flew to Brisbane, only to find out Go and Landicho were already there
negotiating the sale of a 2nd SEACAT 25
- Robinson, Go, Landicho and Tecson made Cordero believe that there would be
no further sale between AFFA and ACG Express Liner
- Cordero wrote to Go informing the latter that he was violating Corderos rights as
the exclusive distributor by dealing directly with Robinson and that if they would
not stop he would take legal actions
- The lawyer of Cordero wrote a demand letter to ACG Express liner assailing the
fraudulent actions and misinterpretations committed by Go in connivance with his
lawyers in breach of Corderos exclusive distributorship appointment
- Council of AFFA replied asserting that the appointment of Cordero as AFFAs
distributor was for one transaction only which was the sale to ACG, and that
Cordero failed to return to AFFA the draft agreement for the exclusive
distributorship within a reasonable time and which the offer was already revoked
by the AFFA

As a response to Cordero, Tecson and Landicho, in behalf of Go, offered to

amicably settle your dispute by convincing Go to honor Corderos exclusive
distributorship with AFFA and to purchase all vessels for ACG from him for the
next 3 years
o Tecson and Landicho proposed that they will convince Go to pay Cordero
on the condition that Landicho and Tecson will get a cut of 20%
Tecson and Landicho were supposed to get weekly status report
and that neither party will file an action against each other
No reports were made
o Tecson and Landicho were only buying time until the
catamaran vessel arrived from Australia
Alert Order was issued by Customs for
misdeclaration and undervaluation

-RTC- RTC filed suit seeking to hold Robinson, Go , Tecson and Landicho liable jointly
and solidarily for conniving and conspiring together in violating his right in bad
faith and wanton disregard thus depriving him his due commission causing him
moral and exemplary damages
- Robinson filed a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of jurisdiction over his
person
o Was denied and was declared in default
- Go and Tecson filed a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of
action
o Was denied
o Subsequently filed their answer denying allegations that they had anything
to do with Corderos termination as exclusive distributor and that it was
Cordero who stopped communicating with the
They alleged that there was no ship building contract and that the
meeting between Cordero and Landicho was due to the malicious
demand of Cordero that he will expose the undervaluation of the
vessel to the media
Cordero had no cause of action for the second sale because he
was already terminated by AFFA
- Cordero was allowed to present his evidence ex parte
- Decision was rendered defendants
- Respondents filed for new trial claiming to have been unduly prejudiced bt the
negligence of their council
o Was denied
- Corderos motion for execution pending appeal was granted
- Respondents moved to reconsider but was denied for failure to pay the docket
fee
- Respondents moved to reconsider and to transmit records to CA
o CA issued a TRO
-CA- CA granted petition and set aside RTCs orders of execution pending appeal

CA affirmed RTC in allowing Cordero to present his evidence ex parte after

unjustified failure of respondents to appear, Cordero and not Pamana was
appointed by AFFA and was not limited to sale of one vessel only, that Cordero
was entitled to his unpaid commission, that he was entitled to damages for
breach of exclusive distributorship
CA ruled that RTC did not err on denying motion for new trial

-SC- Consolidated the cases of both

Issues:
- WON Cordero has legal personality to sue
- WON respondents may be held liable for damages
Held
- Yes since it is Cordero and not Pamana who is the exclusive distributor of AFFA
in the Philippines as shown by the certification issued by Robinson, and by the
fact that payment transactions were done through him and not Pamana
o Robinson submitted himself under court jurisdiction when he filed a motion
to dismiss
- Yes because respondents did invade Corderos rights under the exclusive
distributorship and that they acted in bad faith in bypassing Cordero in their
payments for the first vessel and directly dealing with AFFA
o Go can be sued for inducing another to commit the breach in contract