Case Digest (G.R. No. 91879) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. L-30573, decided on October 29, 1971 under the 1935 Constitution, the heirs of Vicente M. Domingo (petitioner-appellants), represented by Antonina Raymundo vda. de Domingo, Ricardo, Cesar, Amelia, Vicente Jr., Salvacion, Irene and Joselito Domingo, appealed a judgment of the Court of Appeals that had affirmed the trial court’s ruling. In a written exclusive agency contract dated June 2, 1956 (Exhibit “A”), Vicente appointed his brother Gregorio M. Domingo (respondent-appellee), a real estate broker, as his sole agent to sell Lot No. 883 of Piedad Estate, Cubao, Quezon City, containing approximately 88,477 square meters, at P2.00 per square meter, for a commission of 5%. On June 3, 1956, Gregorio engaged Teofilo P. Purisima as sub-agent, promising him one-half of that commission. Purisima introduced prospective buyer Oscar de Leon, who initially offered much less than the asking price. Through negotiations by Gregorio, Vicente agreed to sell at P1.20 per square meter Case Digest (G.R. No. 91879) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Contract
- Vicente M. Domingo (now deceased), represented by his heirs, granted Gregorio M. Domingo an exclusive agency on June 2, 1956 (Exhibit A) to sell Lot No. 883 of Piedad Estate (88,477 sqm) at ₱2.00/sqm (₱176,954.00) for a 5% commission during the 30-day term or within three months thereafter to purchasers introduced during the agency.
- The triplicate contract: original and one copy with Gregorio; one copy with Vicente.
- Engagement of Sub-Agent and Buyer’s Offers
- On June 3, 1956, Gregorio engaged Teofilo P. Purísima as sub-agent, promising him one-half of the 5% commission.
- Purísima introduced Oscar de Leon, who first offered below ₱2.00/sqm (Exhibit B). After negotiations, Oscar raised his offer to ₱109,000.00 (₱1.20/sqm) on June 20, 1956 (Exhibit C), which Vicente accepted and took ₱1,000.00 earnest money.
- Amendments, Gift, and Non-Disclosure
- Exhibit C was amended to include Oscar’s vacating his Denver Street house as part of payment, later extended to December 1, 1956 (Exhibit D).
- Oscar gave Gregorio ₱1,000.00 as a “propina” for securing better terms; Gregorio did not inform Vicente.
- Failure of Closing and Subsequent Sale
- Oscar failed to deliver the additional ₱1,000.00 earnest money and abandoned the deal. Gregorio reminded Vicente of his right to commission; Vicente tore the original Exhibit A.
- Vicente then purchased Oscar’s and his wife Amparo Diaz’s Denver Street property as down payment and finally sold Lot No. 883 to them (deed dated September 17, 1956, Exhibit G).
- Gregorio demanded 5% of ₱109,000.00 (Exhibit H); Vicente refused, arguing the sale was to Amparo, not Gregorio’s buyer.
Issues:
- Does Gregorio’s failure to disclose the ₱1,000 “propina” constitute fraud forfeiting his 5% commission?
- Is Vicente directly liable to the sub-agent Purísima for his share of the commission?
- Was the award of legal interest, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs proper?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)