Title
Lim vs. Saban
Case
G.R. No. 163720
Decision Date
Dec 16, 2004
Ybañez authorized Saban to sell a lot; sale occurred at P600,000, with Saban entitled to commission. Ybañez revoked agency, dishonored checks; Saban sued. SC ruled Saban entitled to P200,000 commission, Lim liable for payment.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 163720)

Facts:

Genevieve Lim v. Florencio Saban, G.R. No. 163720, December 16, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Genevieve Lim (Lim) and respondent Florencio Saban (Saban) litigated over Saban’s claim for broker’s commission arising from his negotiation of the sale of a 1,000-square meter lot owned by the late Eduardo Ybanez (Ybanez) in Cebu City.

On February 8, 1994, Ybanez entered into an Agency Agreement with Saban authorizing him to find a buyer for the lot at P200,000 net and to retain “any amount over and above” for himself (the agency agreement). Through Saban’s efforts, Ybanez and his wife executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on March 10, 1994 conveying the lot to Lim and co-vendees (the Spouses Lim). The deed recited a price of P200,000, but the parties actually agreed on a total consideration of P600,000 inclusive of taxes and incidental expenses. Lim paid P113,257 for taxes and P50,000 as a broker’s fee and issued four postdated checks totaling P236,743 addressed to Saban for the remaining balance.

After the checks were later dishonored, Saban filed a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages against Ybanez and Lim before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, on August 3, 1994. Ybanez died during the action; the trial court, upon motion, dismissed the case as to him. On May 14, 1997 the RTC dismissed Saban’s complaint, declared the four checks stale/non-negotiable, and absolved Lim of liability. Saban appealed to the Court of Appeals.

On October 27, 2003, the Court of Appeals, Seventh Division (opinion penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz), reversed the RTC and held Saban entitled to P236,743 as his commission; it concluded (a) Ybanez’s revocation was invalid because the agency was coupled with an interest and was revoked in bad faith, (b) Lim connived with Ybanez to deprive Saban of his commission, and (c) Lim was liable on the checks as an accommodation party. Lim’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 6, 2004.

...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Is Florencio Saban entitled to his broker’s commission from the sale of Ybanez’s lot?
  • If Saban is entitled to a commission, is Genevieve Lim liable to pay that commission (including liability on the four checks and the extent...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-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.