G.R. No. 97637 - Wilmon Auto Supply Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Intestate Estate of the Late Ricardo P. Presbitero, Sr., represented by its administrator, Ricardo Presbitero, Jr., as Petitioner.
Honorable Court of Appeals and Leonardo Canoso, as Respondents.
Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 18255 dated 6 February 1991.

On 19 August 1981, Ricardo Presbitero, Sr. entered into two written agreements with Leonardo Canoso: a "Conformity of Agreement" (Exhibit "A") and a "Contract of Service" (Exhibit "B").
The property involved was Hacienda Maria, about 270 hectares at Balogo, Pigcawayan, North Cotabato, placed under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27.
Under Exhibit "A", Canoso agreed to negotiate with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) in Cotabato City and to "finish the processing and submission of documents within One hundre (sic) Twenty Days (120 days)" subject to possible delay due to DBP loan approval.
Under Exhibit "B", Presbitero agreed to compensate Canoso "Twenty Five per cent (25%) of the gross total sales" of the properties for services, expenses, preparation and follow-up to effect recovery of proceeds from the LBP.
A later agreement in Bacolod City reduced Canoso's fee from twenty-five percent to seventeen and one-half percent (17½%).

Presbitero wrote Exhibit "C" dated 16 May 1983 requesting that an amount equivalent to 17½% be released in the name of Canoso, proportionately in cash and LBP bonds, on every release until final release.
Presbitero wrote Exhibit "D" dated 14 June 1983 referencing LBP's letter of 6 June 1983 and stating he would personally release cash and bonds to Canoso due to advances made by him.
When part of the proceeds was released, Canoso did not receive his share as alleged.

Canoso filed a complaint against Presbitero; issues were joined and the case was set for trial.
Several postponements were previously granted to Presbitero; an agreed setting (from July 1, 1987) placed trial on 31 August and 1–3 September 1987.
Presbitero, through counsel Atty. Alex Abastillas, sent a telegram received 1 September 1987 requesting postponement due to financial incapacity; the trial court denied the motion in an order dated 1 September 1987 noting Rules of Court do not recognize financial handicap and that another counsel, Atty. Antonio Sumayod, resided in Cotabato City.
The trial court permitted Canoso to present evidence ex parte.
Presbitero filed an "Alternative Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Cross-Examine Witnesses for the Plaintiff" on 18 September 1987; the motion was denied 22 September 1987 and the denial was reconsidered on 20 October 1987, upon which the trial court allowed reception of Presbitero's evidence.
On 18 April 1988, the RTC rendered judgment ordering Presbitero to pay Canoso P65,227.01 in cash and P586,875.00 in bonds (representing twenty-five percent), P20,000.00 as attorney's fee, and P20,000.00 as compensatory damages; the RTC also directed the LBP to segregate the amount payable to Canoso.

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion and violated Presbitero's right to due process by denying his motion for postponement and allowing Canoso to present evidence ex parte without affording the opportunity for cross-examination.

Whether the contracts (Exhibits "A" and "B") were invalid as akin to influence peddling or otherwise opposed to public policy.

Whether Canoso substantially complied with the contractual obligations, thereby entitling him to the agreed fee (as reduced to 17½%), or whether Presbitero could rescind, enforce reduction, or invoke *promissory estoppel* (as argued citing Ramos vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, 41 SCRA 565 [1971]).