Infante v Cunanan

DOCTRINE: The agent is entitled to commission even if the (transaction) is consummated after the
revocation of his authority, if the revocation was done in bad faith by the principal to avoid payment of
commission.

FACTS:
Infante (defendant in the original case) was the owner of 2 parcels of land together with the
house built thereon situated in Manila
She contracted the services of Cunanan and Mijares (plaintiffs in the original case) to sell the
property for 30k subject to the condition that the purchaser would assume the mortgage existing
thereon in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corp (RFC).
o She also agreed to pay them a commission of 5% on the purchase price plus whatever
overprice they may obtain
The plaintiffs found Noche who was willing to buy under the terms of the defendant BUT when
they introduced him to defendant, the latter informed them that she no longer was interested in
selling the property
o She also made them sign a document that the written authority she had given them was
already cancelled
However, defendant Infante later dealt directly with Noche selling him the property for 31k
Upon learning this, Cunanan and Mijares demanded payment of their commission BUT she
refused so the plaintiffs brought the present action
o Infante raised a defense that they had a different agreement
Lower Court in favor of Cunanan aand Mijares
CA affirmed in toto
o But now petitioner contends that when she sold the property to Noche, she was already
free from her commitment with now respondents Cunanan aand Mijares since the latter
have signed the document cancelling her grant of authority to them
o Respondents Cunanan aand Mijares argued that they had a verbal assurance with
Infante that should the property be sold to their own Buyer, Noche, they would still be
given the commission agreed upon

ISSUES + RULING:
WON they are entitled to their commission. YES
The change of mind by Infante may be a stratagem
o The situation varies if one of the parties takes advantage of the benevolence of the other
and acts in a manner that would promote his own selfish interest.
o This act is unfair as would amount to bad faith. This act cannot be sanctioned without
according to the party prejudiced the reward which is due him
This is the situation in which the respondent were placed by petitioner
Petitioner Infante took advantage of the services rendered by the respondents, but believing that
she could evade payment of their commission, she made use of a ruse or an action intended to
deceive someone by inducing them to sign the deed of cancellation
This act of subversion cannot be sanctioned and cannot serve as basis for petitioner to escape
payment of commission