Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36585)
Facts:
Mariano Diolosa and Alegria Villanueva-Diolosa v. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Quirino Baterna, G.R. No. L-36585, July 16, 1984, the Supreme Court First Division, Relova, J., writing for the Court.The case arose from a complaint filed by private respondent Quirino Baterna (a licensed real estate broker and proprietor of Quin Baterna Realty) in the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Civil Case No. 7864) to recover unpaid commissions and other damages after petitioners Mariano Diolosa and Alegria Villanueva-Diolosa terminated an exclusive agency agreement. The trial court conducted a pre-trial conference in which the parties admitted key facts and exhibits: Exhibit "A" (the exclusive sales-agent agreement dated June 20, 1968) and Exhibit "B" (a letter dated September 27, 1968 by which the Diolosas purported to rescind the agency, stating they would reserve the unsold lots for their grandchildren). The pre-trial order, signed August 14, 1969, recorded that the parties agreed the broker was constituted as exclusive sales agent “until all the subject property as subdivided is fully disposed of,” and that the defendants had terminated the agency by Exhibit "B".
At trial the Court of First Instance dismissed Baterna's complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering the petitioners to pay private respondent P10,000.00 as damages, P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs. Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court by appeal by certiorari from the Court of Appeals decision. The sole question presented was whether petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Could petitioners validly terminate the exclusive agency agreement contained in Exhibit "A" without liability for damage...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)