Case Digest (G.R. No. 94753)
Facts:
Manotok Brothers, Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, The Honorable Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch VI), and Salvador Saligumba, G.R. No. 94753, April 07, 1993, the Supreme Court Second Division, Campos, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Manotok Brothers, Inc. owned a parcel of land and building formerly leased by the City of Manila and occupied by Claro M. Recto High School. By a letter dated July 5, 1966 the corporation authorized Salvador Saligumba (private respondent) to negotiate a sale of the property for not less than P425,000 and agreed to pay him a five percent commission if the sale were consummated; that authority was extended repeatedly (letters dated March 4, 1967; June 26, 1967) and lastly by a letter dated November 16, 1967 authorizing completion of a sale for not less than P410,000 with an extension of 180 days (to remain in force until May 14, 1968).
The Manila Municipal Board passed Ordinance No. 6603 appropriating P410,816 on April 26, 1968; the ordinance was signed by the Mayor on May 17, 1968. A deed of sale was executed January 14, 1969 and the purchase price paid in two installments (initial payment of P200,000 and a later payment by check of P210,816 on April 8, 1969). Although payment was made, Saligumba never received the agreed commission (P20,554.50), prompting him to sue by complaint filed June 29, 1969 alleging he had negotiated and procured the sale.
At trial private respondent testified to negotiations and steps he took (meetings with petitioner's president, enquiries with the Assessors Office, approaches to Councilor Mariano Magsalin, endorsements from the Mayor’s office to the Superintendent of City Schools and to the Municipal Board) and presented witnesses (Fructuoso Ancheta, Atty. Dominador Bisbal) who corroborated his authority and efforts. Petitioner countered that (1) the authority had expired so no commission was due and (2) Filomeno Huelgas (PTA president) was the procuring cause; petitioner also filed a counterclaim for P4,000. The Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court), Branch VI, Manila awarded Saligumba the commission and P4,000 as attorneys’ fees; the Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza (joined by Justices Manuel C. Herrera and Jorge S. Imperial), affirmed.
Petitioner sought relief by a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. 78898), to which the Court required respondent to comment; the notice was returned unserved. The Court then, by Resolution dated March 13, 1989, required petitioner to locate private respondent and furnish his present address. Petitioner protested inability to locate him and the Supreme Court, by Resolution dated May 3, 1989, dismissed the petition as the issues could not be joined without private respondent’s address, thereby rendering the Court of Appeals’ judgment final and executory. Private respondent moved to execute the judgment in the trial court on January 9, 1990.
Petitioner then filed the instant Petition for Relief in this Court (docketed G.R. No. 94753) on August 30, 1990, later amended September 13, 1990, asking inter alia for preliminary injunctive relief and for the Court to hold private respondent in contempt for allegedly using a "sinister ploy" to deprive petitioner o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is private respondent Salvador Saligumba entitled to the five percent (5%) commission claimed for negotiating the sale of petitioner Manotok Brothers, Inc.'s pro...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)