Case Digest (G.R. No. 122857)
Facts:
Roy Nicolas v. The Honorable Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) and Blesilo F.B. Buan, G.R. No. 122857, March 27, 1998, Supreme Court Third Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Roy Nicolas (plaintiff below) and private respondent Blesilo F.B. Buan (defendant below) entered into a Portfolio Management Agreement on February 19, 1987, under which Nicolas was to manage Buan’s stock transactions for three months with automatic renewal. The agreement was terminated at Buan’s initiative on August 19, 1987; Buan thereafter requested an accounting of transactions. Three weeks after termination Nicolas demanded P68,263.67 as management fees for the periods ending June 30, July 31 and August 19, 1987, pursuant to the agreement’s provision that the portfolio manager receive 20% of realized profits each month. Buan refused payment.
Nicolas filed a complaint for collection of sum of money in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig, Branch 165. The RTC rendered judgment for plaintiff on May 31, 1993, awarding the P68,263.67 claimed, P8,000 attorney’s fees, and costs. Defendant Buan appealed to the Court of Appeals (Sixth Division). On August 16, 1995 the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding petitioner’s profit-and-loss statements and ledger insufficiently authenticated and devoid of probative value; the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on November 29, 1995.
Petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals’ reversal and contending the CA misappreciated the evidence that, he said, established...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC and dismissing petitioner’s complaint?
- Did petitioner prove entitlement to the 20% management fees under the Portfolio Management Agreement by establishing realized profits?
- Is petitioner precluded from recovering compensation for brokerage/portfolio management services because he was not licensed/registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of Sec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)