Title
Danon vs. Brimo
Case
G.R. No. 15823
Decision Date
Sep 12, 1921
Broker Julio Danon sought commission for finding buyers for a factory, but the Supreme Court ruled he was not the procuring cause of the sale, absolving the defendant.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 15823)

Facts:

On September 12, 1921, in G.R. No. 15823, Julio Danon filed an action against Antonio A. Brimo & Co. to recover P60,000, which he alleged was the value of services he rendered to the defendant as a broker. Danon alleged that in August 1918, Brimo, the defendant’s manager, employed him to look for a purchaser of the defendant’s factory known as “Holland American Oil Co.” for P1,200,000 payable in cash. Danon claimed that the defendant promised him a commission of five per cent on the sale price if the sale was consummated, or if he found a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy the factory for P1,200,000. Danon further alleged that he found such a purchaser, but that the defendant refused to sell the factory without any justifiable motive and without previously notifying him of its desistance or variation in the price and terms. The defendant interposed a general denial. After trial, the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario rendered judgment for Danon and against the defendant in the amount of P60,000, plus costs. On appeal, the Court found the proof on the authority of Danon to sell the factory on commission to be “extremely unsatisfactory,” being based solely on the testimony of Danon and Brimo, and that both witnesses were not entirely free from prevarications; nevertheless, the Court approximated the truth and found that Brimo informed Danon that he desired to sell the factory for P1,200,000, agreed to pay a five per cent commission if Danon could sell at that amount, and fixed no definite period within which Danon had to effect the sale. The evidence also showed that another broker, Sellner, was negotiating for the same property, and Danon likely knew that he was not alone. Regarding performance, the Court likewise treated the evidence as unsatisfactory but gathered that Danon, immediately after his interview with Brimo, approached Mauro Prieto, president of the Santa Ana Oil Mill, offered the factory at P1,200,000, and that Prieto instructed his manager, Samuel E. Kane, to see Brimo and seek permission to inspect the premises. Kane inspected the factory and apparently made a favorable report, and Prieto asked for an appointment with Brimo to perfect the negotiation. In the meantime, Sellner found a buyer who ultimately purchased the factory for P1,300,000, so Prieto never came to see Brimo. Under the proofs, Danon had only found a person who might have bought the factory if the defendant had not sold it to someone else; the evidence did not show that Santa Ana Oil Mill had definitely decided to buy at P1,200,000 or had formally agreed to purchase at that price. Danon argued that Santa Ana Oil Mill failed to consummate the sale because Brimo preferred an American buyer, and Danon then tried to find another purchaser by finding Mr. Leas, who delivered a letter offering to buy at P1,200,000 valid for twenty-four hours, but Brimo rejected the offer because Sellner came in and closed the deal at P1,300,000. The last statement was admitted by the defendant. On these facts, the appellate decision reversed the lower court’s award to Danon.

Issues:

Whether Julio Danon was entitled to recover a five per cent commission of P60,000 from Antonio A. Brimo & Co. when he allegedly produced a prospective buyer, but the sale was not consummated at the contract price of P1,200,000 and the evidence showed he was not the procuring cause of the sale.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.