Constate Amor de Castro vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 11838, July 18, 2002
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
Appellants were co-owners of
four (4) lots located at EDSA corner New York and Denver Streets in Cubao,
Quezon City. In a letter dated January 24, 1984, appellee was authorized by
appellants to act as real estate broker in the sale of these properties for the
amount of P 23,000,000.00, five percent (5%) of which will be given to the
agent as commission. It was appellee who first found Times Transit Corporation,
represented by its president Mr. Rondaris, as prospective buyer which desired
to buy two (2) lots only, specifically lots 14 and 15. Eventually, sometime in
May of 1985, the sale of lots 14 and 15 was consummated. Appellee received from
appellants P48,893.76 as commission.
It was then that the rift
between the contending parties soon emerged. Appellee apparently felt short
changed because according to him, his total commission should be P 352,500.00
which is five percent (5%) of the agreed price of P 7,050,000.00 paid by Times
Transit Corporation to appellants for the two (2) lots, and that it was he who
introduced the buyer to appellants and unceasingly facilitated the negotiation
which ultimately led to the consummation of the sale. Hence, he sued below to
collect the balance of P 303,606.24 after having received P 48,893.76 in
advance.
On the other hand, appellants
completely traverse appellee's claims and essentially argue that appellee is
selfishly asking for more than what he truly deserved as commission to the
prejudice of other agents who were more instrumental in the consummation of the
sale. Although appellants readily concede that it was appellee who first
introduced Times Transit Corp. to them, appellee was not designated by them as
their exclusive real estate agent but that in fact there were more or less
eighteen (18) others whose collective efforts in the long run dwarfed those of
appellee's, considering that the first negotiation for the sale where appellee
took active participation failed and it was these other agents who successfully
brokered in the second negotiation. But despite this and out of appellants'
"pure liberality, beneficence and magnanimity", appellee nevertheless
was given the largest cut in the commission (P 48,893.76), although on the
principle of quantum meruit he would have certainly been entitled to less. So,
appellee should not have been heard to complain of getting only a pittance when
he actually got the lion's share of the commission and worse, he should not
have been allowed to get the entire commission. Furthermore, the purchase price
for the two lots was only P3.6 million as appearing in the deed of sale and not
P7.05 million as alleged by appellee. Thus, even assuming that appellee is
entitled to the entire commission, he would only be getting 5% of the P3.6
million, or P180,000.00.
RTC ruled in favor of Francisco
Artigo.CA also affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Hence, the
instant petition
ISSUE
Whether or not the CA erred in not ordering the
dismissal of the complaint for failure to implead indispensable
parties-in-interest.
RULING
No, CA did not err in ordering the dismissal of the
complaint for failure to implead parties-in-interest.
Under the law (Art 1216), the creditor may proceed
against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.
The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may
subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been
fully collected.
In this case, SC views De Castros’ contention
that Artigo's complaint should have been dismissed for failure to implead all
the co-owners of the two lots is devoid of legal basis. The rule on mandatory
joinder of indispensable parties is not applicable to the instant case because
there is no dispute that Constante appointed Artigo in a handwritten note dated
January 24, 1984 to sell the properties of the De Castros for P23 million at a
5% commission. The authority was on a first come, first serve basis. Constante
signed the note as owner and as representative of the other co-owners. Under
this note, a contract of agency was clearly constituted between Constante and
Artigo. Whether Constante appointed Artigo as agent, in Constante's individual
or representative capacity, or both, the De Castros cannot seek the dismissal
of the case for failure to implead the other co-owners as indispensable
parties. The De Castros admit that the other co-owners are solidarily liable under
the contract of agency. The Court applied the ruling in the case of “Operators
Incorporated vs. American Biscuit Co., Inc.” that "solidarity does not
make a solidary obligor an indispensable party in a suit filed by the creditor.
No comments:
Post a Comment