Case Digest (G.R. No. 115838)
Facts:
Constante Amor de Castro and Corazon Amor de Castro v. Court of Appeals and Francisco Artigo, G.R. No. 115838, July 18, 2002, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Constante A. De Castro and Corazon A. De Castro (the De Castros) sought review of the Court of Appeals' May 4, 1994 decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 37996 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 80, Civil Case No. Q-89-2631, Judge Benigno T. Dayaw, in a suit filed by private respondent Francisco Artigo to collect unpaid broker's commission; the RTC's judgment (Dec. 20, 1991) ordered the De Castros jointly and solidarily liable for P303,606.24 (unpaid commission), P25,000 (moral damages), P45,000 (attorneys’ fees), and costs.
On January 24, 1984, Constante signed a handwritten authorization appointing Artigo as real estate broker to sell co-owned lots at EDSA corner New York & Denver, Cubao, for P23,000,000 with a 5% commission on a first-come, first-serve basis. Artigo located Times Transit Corporation as a purchaser; two lots (lots 14 and 15) were sold in June 1985. Artigo received P48,893.76 as partial commission but claimed the total commission due on the selling price was P352,500 (5% of P7,050,000), leaving a balance of P303,606.24.
The De Castros maintained that the deed of sale reflected a P3.6 million price for the two lots; they argued other agents played key roles and that Artigo had been fully paid, or otherwise barred by waiver, estoppel, laches, or the best-evidence/parol evidence rules. Artigo countered that he introduced the buyer and facilitated negotiations, that the actual purchase price was P7.05 million, and that partial payment did not extinguish his right to the balance.
The RTC found in favor of Artigo on the agency contract and the actual purchase price, awarded the unpaid balance plus moral damages and attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeals (Seventh Division; Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, ponente) affirmed the RTC in toto, upholding agency, admissibility of extrinsic evidence to prove the actual purchase price as between strangers to the deed, and the awards for moral damages and attorneys’ fees. The De Cas...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not dismissing the complaint for failure to implead indispensable co-owners?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Artigo’s claim was extinguished by full payment, waiver, abandonment, or laches?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in considering incompetent evidence and in admitting parol evidence to fix the purchase price?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving credence to patently perjured testimony?
- Was the award of moral damages and attorneys’ fees to Artigo improper?
- Should the De Castros have been a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)