CONSEJO INFANTE v JOSE CUNANAN,
Juan Mijares and the CA
31 Aug 1953 | Bautista-Angelo, J. | Topic:
Obligations and liabilities of principals to
agents
FACTS:
Infante was the owner of two parcels of land,
together with a house built thereon, situated
in Manila.
Infante contracted the services of Cunana
and Mjiares to sell the above-mentioned
property for Php30,000 subject to the
condition that the purchaser would assume
the mortgage existing thereon in favor of the
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation.
Infante agreed to pay them a
commission of 5% on the purchaser
price plus whatever overprice they
may obtain for the property.
Cunanan and Mijares found one Pio Noche
who was willing to buy the property under
such terms.
When Noche was introduced to
Infante, she informed them that
she was no longer interested in
selling the property.
She made them sign a document
stating that the written authority
she gave them was already
cancelled.
A few weeks later, Infante dealt directly with
Noche, selling him the property for
Php31,000.
Cunanan and Mijares demanded
the payment of their commission
but Infante refused.
Infante admitted having contracted the
service of Cunanan and Mijares to sell her
property but stated that she agreed to pay a
commission of Php1,200 only on condition
that they buy her a property along Taft
Avenue. While Cunanan and Mijares took
steps to selling her property as agreed upon,
they sold the property at Taft Avenue to
another party which prompted her to cancel
the authority she gave them.
Lower court ruled in favor of Cunanan and
Mijares and ordered Infante to pay. CA
affirmed in toto.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner has obligation to pay
respondents - YES
Respondents were authorized by petitioner
to sell her property with the understanding
that they will be given a commission plus
whatever overprice they may obtain. Infante
avers that the authority has already been
withdrawn when, by voluntary act of
respondents, they executed a document
stating that the authority shall be considered
cancelled.
Under the old Civil Code, Infantes right to
withdraw such authority is recognized. A
principa may withdraw the authority given to
an agent at will. However, respondents claim
that although they agreed to cancel the
written authority, they did so upon the verbal
assurance that should the property be sold to
Noche, they would be given the commission
agreed upon.
There is enough justification to conclude that
respondents are entitled to the commission
originally agreed upon. That petitioner had
changed her mind even if respondent had
found a buyer who was willing to close the
deal, is a matter that would not give rise to a
legal consequence if respondents agree to
call off the transactions. However, petitioner
took advantage of the services rendered by
petitioner. Believing that she could evade
payment of their commission, she induced
them to sign the deed of cancellation. This
cannot be sanctioned and cannot serve as
basis for petitioner to escape payment of the
commission agreed upon.
Decision appealed from is affirmed.