Case Digest (G.R. No. 228799)
Facts:
Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. and Antonio Tompar v. Benfrei S. Germo, G.R. No. 228799, January 10, 2018, Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.
Respondent Benfrei S. Germo (plaintiff) filed a Complaint for sum of money and damages on February 28, 2011 against petitioner Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. (MRII) and its President/CEO Antonio Tompar. Germo alleged that on September 21, 2004 the parties entered into a Technical Consultancy Agreement (TCA) under which Germo acted as MRII’s marketing consultant to be paid on a commission basis plus a monthly allowance of P5,000. While the TCA was in effect, Germo negotiated and closed a supply contract between MRII and International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) (negotiations commencing May 2, 2006; supply began February 22, 2007), but MRII allegedly failed to pay Germo his commissions, which he claimed amounted to P2,225,969.56 as of December 2009 and P4,499,412.84 for the period February 2007 to March 2012.
Germo first filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the parties were not in an employer‑employee relationship; a civil case before an RTC branch was dismissed without prejudice due to counsel’s failure to mark exhibits. Germo then filed the instant civil complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 (Civil Case No. 11‑029). In their Answer, MRII and Tompar denied an employer‑employee relationship, disputed Germo’s entitlement to commissions, and asserted that ICTSI became MRII’s client through another person. Because MRII, Tompar and their counsel repeatedly failed to appear at pretrial conferences, the RTC treated them as in default and allowed Germo to present his evidence ex parte.
On January 14, 2015 the RTC found for Germo and ordered MRII and Tompar to pay P4,499,412.84 (unpaid commissions for February 2007–March 2012) with legal interest, P100,000.00 moral damages, P100,000.00 exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 attorney’s fees; a lien for filing fees was imposed because Germo litigated as an indigent. MRII and Tompar appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) raising, among other contentions, that the dispute was an employment matter for the NLRC and that Germo lacked legal personality to sue. In a Decision dated August 8, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC, concluding Germo proved the TCA, that ICTSI became MRII’s client through Germo’s efforts, and that MRII failed to pay co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the regular courts lack jurisdiction because the dispute was an employer‑employee matter cognizable by the NLRC?
- Was Benfrei S. Germo without legal personality to sue because he signed the TCA in a representative capacity?
- Were MRII and Antonio Tompar solidarily liable to Germo for the unpa...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)