[41] Infante vs Cunanan 1) This is a petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the

judgment of the court of origin which orders the defendant (Infante) to pay the plaintiffs
G.R. L-5180 | August 31, 1953 | Bautista Angelo (Cunanan and Mijares) the sum of P2,500 with legal interest thereon from February 2,
1949 and the costs of action.
Petitioners: Consejo Infante
2) Parties:
Respondents: Jose Cunanan, Juan Mijares, CA (2nd Division)

TOPIC: Rights of the Agent – As to Compensation  Petitioner Consejo Infante – Principal (owns the subject land)
 Respondents Jose Cunanan and Juan Mijares – Agents (contracted to sell
Infante’s land)

SUMMARY 3) Petitioner Infante was the owner of two parcels of land, together with a house
built thereon, situated in the City of Manila.
Respondents Cunanan and Mijares were authorized by petitioner Consejo to sell her
land with the understanding that they will be given a commission of 5 percent plus  On or before November 30, 1948, she contracted the services of private
whatever overprice they may obtain for the property. Respondents found a buyer and respondents Cunanan and Mijares, to sell the above-mentioned property
introduced said buyer to Consejo who then said that she was no longer interested in for a price of P30,000 subject to the condition that the purchaser would
selling the property. Respondents alter found out that Consejo dealt directly with the assume the mortgage existing thereon in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance
buyer they found so they demanded their commission but petitioner refused. Consejo Corporation.
contends that that authority of the respondents has already been withdrawn since they  She agreed to pay them a commission of 5 per cent on the purchase price
executed a document stating that said authority shall be considered cancelled, hence plus whatever overprice they may obtain for the property.
when she sold the property to the buyer she was already free from her commitment
4) Respondents found one Pio S. Noche who was willing to buy the property under
with respondents and was not in duty bound to pay them any commission for the
the terms agreed upon with Infante, but when they introduced him to Infante, the
transaction. In opposing petitioner’s claim, respondents claim that while they agreed to
latter informed them that she was no longer interested in selling the property and
cancel the written authority given to them, they did so merely upon the verbal assurance
succeeded in making them sign a document stating therein that the written authority
of the petitioner that if the property is sold to the buyer, they will still be given their
she had given them was already cancelled.
commission. This oral evidence was admitted by the lower courts so it ruled that the
respondents shall be paid by Consejo. Such admission of the oral evidence prompted 5) December 20, 1948: Infante dealt directly with Pio S. Noche selling to him the
Consejo to file this present petition for review. property for P31,000. Upon learning this transaction, respondents demanded from
Infante the payment of their commission, but she refused and so they brought the
The issue in this case is whether or not the respondents should be paid by Consejo
present action.
and the Court held yes. Although the oral evidence should not have been admitted, the
Court emphasized that while Consejo has the right to withdraw the authority of the 6) Consejo admitted having contracted the services Cunanan and Mijares to sell her
respondents, such withdrawal was done to take advantage of the respondents which property as set forth in the complaint, but stated that she agreed to pay them a
is unfair and should not be allowed. Hence, the respondents are entitled to their commission of P1,200 only on condition that they buy her a property somewhere
commission. in Taft Avenue to where she might transfer after selling her property.
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE  Consejo avers that while respondents took steps to sell her property as agreed
upon, they sold the property at Taft Avenue to another party and because of
Article 1733, Old Civil Code. A principal may withdraw the authority given to an agent this failure it was agreed that the authority she had given them be cancelled.
at will.
7) The lower court found that the preponderance of evidence was in favor of the
DOCTRINE
respondents and rendered judgment sentencing Consejo to pay them P2,500 with legal
Principal has the right to withdraw the authority of his/her agent. However, if such interest thereon from February 2, 1949 plus the costs of action.
withdrawal amounts to taking advantage of the benevolence of agent and acts in a
 This decision was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.
manner that would promote his own selfish interest, this withdrawal cannot be
sanctioned without according to the party prejudiced (i.e., the agent) the reward which
is due him. ISSUES, HELD, RATIO
FACTS
Whether or not Consejo should pay Cunanan and Mijares the P2,500 (i.e., their
commission) - YES
The Court saying that even disregarding the oral evidence adduced by respondents in
SC first noted the following: contravention of the parole evidence rule, there is enough justification that respondents
are entitled to the commission originally agreed upon
 Respondents Cunanan and Mijares were authorized by petitioner to sell her
property for the sum of P30,000 with the understanding that they will be given  CA found that after Consejo had given the written authority to respondent to
a commission of 5 percent plus whatever overprice they may obtain for the sell her land for the sum of P30,000, respondents found buyer in the person
property. of one Pio S. Noche who was willing to buy the property under the terms
 Consejo, however, contends that that authority has already been withdrawn agreed upon, and this matter was immediately brought to the knowledge of
on November 30, 1948 when, by the voluntary act of respondents, they petitioner. But the latter, perhaps by way of stratagem, advised
executed a document stating that said authority shall be considered cancelled respondents that she was no longer interested it the deal and was able
and without any effect, so that when petitioner sold the property to Pio S. to prevail upon them to sign a document agreeing to the cancellation of
Noche on December 20, 1948, she was already free from her commitment the written authority
with respondents and, therefore, was not in duty bound to pay them any  That petitioner had changed her mind even if respondents had found a buyer
commission for the transaction who was willing to close the deal, is a matter that would not give rise to a legal
 SC: IF THE FACTS WERE AS CLAIMED BY PETITIONER, there is indeed consequence if respondents agree to call of the transaction in deference to
no doubt that she would have no obligation to pay respondents the the request of petitioner. But the situation varies if one of the parties takes
commission which was promised them under the original authority because, advantage of the benevolence of the other and acts in a manner that
under the old Civil Code, her right to withdraw such authority is would promote his own selfish interest. This act is unfair as would amount
recognized to bad faith. This act cannot be sanctioned without according to the party
o HOWEVER, this fact is disputed. Respondents claim that while prejudiced the reward which is due him.
they agreed to cancel the written authority given to them, they did  IN THIS CASE: Consejo took advantage of services rendered by
so merely upon the verbal assurance given by petitioner that, respondents, but believing that she, could evade payment of their
should the property be sold to their own buyer, Pio S. Noche, they commission, she made use of a ruse by inducing them to sign the deed of
would be given the commission agreed upon. cancellation. The SC ruled that this act of subversion cannot be
o True, this verbal assurance does not appear in the written sanctioned and cannot serve as basis for petitioner to escape payment
cancellation, on the other hand, it is disputed by petitioner, but of the commission agreed upon.
respondents were allowed to present oral evidence to prove it,
and this is now assigned as error by Consejo in this petition for
review. RULING
The Court resolving the issue on whether or not the presentation of oral evidence
should be allowed: Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

 The plea that oral evidence should not have been allowed to prove the alleged SEPARATE OPINIONS
verbal assurance is well taken it appearing that the written authority given to
LABRADOR, J., concurring and dissenting:
respondents has been cancelled in a written statement
o GENERAL RULE: "When the terms of an agreement have been “I concur in the result. I cannot agree, however, to the ruling made in the majority
reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all those decision that the petitioners cannot introduce evidence of the circumstances
terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the parties and their
under which the document was signed, i.e. upon promise by respondent that should
successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement
other than the contents of the writing." (Section 22, Rule 123, Rules the property be sold to petitioner's buyer they would nevertheless be entitled to the
of Court.) commission agreed upon. Such evidence is not excluded by the parole evidence rule,
o The only exceptions to this rule are: "(a) Where a mistake or because it does not tend to alter or vary the terms of the document. This document was
imperfection of the writing, or its failure to express the true intent and merely a withdrawal of the authority granted the petitioner to sell the property, not an
agreement of the parties, or the validity of the agreement is put in agreement that they shall not be paid their commission.”
issue by the pleadings" ; and "(b) Where there is an intrinsic
ambiguity in the writing."
 IN THIS CASE: General rule applies because none of the exceptions has
been put in issue by respondents in their complaint. The terms of the
document seem to be clear and they do not contain any reservation which
may in any way run counter to the clear intention of the parties.