Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Naguiat v. CA (TOFF)
2003
Tinga, J.
formerly
the
Roxas
Electric
and
Construction Company, was the owner of
two parcels of land. On May 17, 1991, the
respondents Board of Directors approved a
resolution authorizing the corporation,
through its president, Roberto B. Roxas, to
sell the lots at a price, and under such
terms and conditions, which he deemed
most reasonable and advantageous to the
corporation. He was likewise authorized to
execute, sign, and deliver the pertinent
sales documents and receive the proceeds
of the sale for and on behalf of the
company.
Petitioner WHI bought one of the lots and a
portion of the other. It was stipulated in
the Deed of Sale that the vendor agrees, in
the event that the right of way is
insufficient for the vendees use (ex entry
of a 45-foot container), to sell additional
square meters from its current adjacent
property.
WHI constructed a warehouse. Said
warehouse was leased by Ponderosa
Leather Goods Company subject to a
monthly rental of 300,000 php. In the
meantime, WHI complained to Roberto
Roxas that the vehicles of RECCI were
parked on a portion of the property over
which WHI had been granted a right of way.
Roxas promised to look into the matter. Dy
and Roxas discussed the need of WHI to
buy a 500-square-meter portion of the
other but Roxas died soon thereafter.
The WHI demanded that the RECCI sell a
portion of the other lot for its beneficial use
otherwise the appropriate action would be
filed against it. RECCI rejected the demand
of WHI. On June 17, 1992, the WHI filed a
complaint against the RECCI with the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, for specific
performance and damages.
THE AGENT
Danon v. Brimo (MARK)
Sept. 12, 1921
J. Johnson
FACTS:
to
the
RATIONALE
Plaintiff
is
not
entitled
to
the
commission.The most that can be said as
to what the plaintiff had accomplished is,
that he had found a person who might
have bought the defendant's factory if the
defendant had not sold it to someone else.
The evidence does not show that the Santa
Ana Oil Mill had definitely decided to buy
the property in question at the fixed price
of P1,200,000. The board of directors of
said corporation had not resolved to
purchase said property; and even if its
president could legally make the purchase
without previous formal authorization of
the board of directors, yet said president
does not pretend that he had definitely and
formally agreed to buy the factory in
question on behalf of his corporation at the
price stated.
It is undisputed that plaintiffs services did
not any way contribute towards bringing
about the sale of the factory in question.
He was not "the efficient agent or the
procuring cause of the sale."
Pratts v. CA (ROG)
1978
Facts: This complaint for sum of money filed
by Prats, doing business under name of
Philippine Real Estate Exchange, against
Doronila and PNB.
Doronila was registered owner of 300hectares
of land. He wrote to SSS Chair offering his
property to SSS at P4 per square meter (per
sqm). There were several counter offers made
as to the price. Doronilla requested certification
from Board of Realtor regarding the actual
prices of his real estate raw-land properties.
The Board replied that the fair market value of
raw land is P3-P3.50 per sqm. Current prices
before reaching Doronilla's property range from
6-7 per sqm.
Doronilla granted an exclusive option and
authority to Prats to sell former's property.
Commission will be 10% based on P2.10 per
sqm or at any price finally agreed upon.
Doronilla asked SSS to return all papers related
to his property in view of the exclusive option
granted to Prats.
SSS asked for a meeting with Doronilla but
latter asked that SSS meet with Philippine Real
Estate Exchange instead because Doronilla had
given exclusive option to it. Prats gave notice
to Doronilla that SSS had agreed to purchase
the land. The latter replied that he had not
received any written offer from SSS during the
60day period of the exclusive authority nor
during its extension.
Doronilla wrote to SSS renewing his offer to sell
revising his original offer of P4 per sqm to
P3.25. SSS passed a resolution NO. 636 making
April 7, 1993
J. Campos, Jr.
**Um Mark, I dont recall assigning this to
you. Sorry!
FACTS:
Petitoner Manotok Brothers Inc was the
owner of a certain parcel of land and
building which were formerly leased by the
city of Manila and used by Claro M. Recto
High School. By means of lettter dated July
5, 1966, petitioner authorized respondent
Salvador Saligumba to negotiate with the
city of Manila the sale of aforementioned
property. In the same writing petitoner
agreed to pay respondent 5% commisssion
in the event the sale is consummated.
Petitoner exended respondents authority
to sell several times. Within the extended
period, the city of Manila passed Ordinace
No. 6603 appropriating the sum of
P410,816 for the prurchase of Manotok
Brothers property. Said ordinance however
was signed by the mayor only on May 17,
1968, three days after the lapse of
respondents extended authority.
Sale was consummated. Notwithstanding
the realization of the sale, Saligumba never
received any commission. Consequently,
he filed a complaint against petioner.
ISSUES WON Saligumba is entitled to the 5%
agents commission. YES.
RATIONALE
In Prats vs CA, the SC awarded a sum of
money to agent-claimant in view of his
assistance and efforts in the transaction,
although he was not the efficient procuring
cause in bringing about the sale and
notwithsatnding the expiration of his
authority. In the case at bar, respondent
Saligumba is the efficient procuring cause
for without his efforts the municipality
would not have anything to pass and the
Mayor would not have anything to approve.
It is clear therefore from the foregoing
authority that respondent is entitled to the
commission.
Distinguished from Danon vs Brimo: The
case of Danon is not in point. In that case,
claimant-agent fully comprehended the
possibility that he may not realize the
agents commission as he was informed
that another agent was also negotiating
the sale and thus, compensation will
pertain to the one who finds a purchaser
and eventually effects the sale.
Serona v. CA (ABBY)
2002
J. Ynares-Santiago
Facts:
Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces of jewelry to
petitioner Virgie Serona to be sold on
commission basis. By oral agreement of the
parties, Serona shall remit payment or return
the pieces of jewelry if not sold to Quilatan,
both within 30 days from receipt of the items.
Serona had earlier entrusted the jewelry to one
Marichu Labrador for the latter to sell on
commission basis. Petitioner was not able to
collect payment from Labrador, which caused
her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to
Quilatan.
Quilatan sent a demand letter to Serona but
she failed to pay the principal. Labrador says
that she sold some of the jewelry to a 3 rd
person who did not pay her.
Serano is charged with estafa and is now
appealing to have the decision of the TC
reversed.
Issue: WoN Serona is liable for the acts of her
sub-agent Labrador
San Juan
(JANCES)
Structural
and
Steel
CA
DBP v. CA (EVA)
1994
Quaison, J.
Facts:
(Latin) as a favor