G.R. No. 226656 - Gere vs. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Phils., Inc.

On June 6, 1955, plaintiff Joaquin T. Ortega sold and delivered 2,643 kilos of flue-cured Virginia leaf tobacco to defendant Bauang Farmers Cooperative Marketing Association (FACOMA), valued at P7,136.10.
Defendant made partial payments on June 8 (P1,325.00) and June 13, 1955 (P2,675.00), leaving an unpaid balance of P3,136.10, despite repeated demands for payment.

In its answer, defendant admitted the delivery and sale but raised an affirmative defense: the tobacco was actually delivered for the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) based on an agency contract between ACCFA (as principal) and FACOMA (as agent).
Defendant contended that final liquidation between ACCFA and itself (as agent) had not been completed, implying that the obligation to pay the remaining balance did not clearly rest upon FACOMA.

Shortly after its answer, defendant filed a "Motion to Bring in Third Party Defendant" along with a "Third Party Complaint" against the ACCFA, seeking transfer of liability for any sum adjudged against it in favor of the plaintiff.
The trial court, considering the ACCFA a necessary party, granted the motion on May 14, 1956, and later, on June 21, 1956, struck out the third-party complaint upon ACCFA’s motion to dismiss it for lack of leave.

On July 6, 1956, prior to trial, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts which:

Confirmed the existence and later revocation (dated March 28, 1956) of a memorandum agreement between FACOMA and ACCFA.
Established that the plaintiff was not informed of the agency arrangement at the time of sale, as evidenced by the standard invoice that omitted any reference to ACCFA.

The trial court, relying on these pleadings and stipulated facts, rendered a decision on July 11, 1956, ordering FACOMA to pay the balance of P3,136.10 with interest, costs, and based on the application of Article 1883 of the New Civil Code.

Appellant (FACOMA) contended that no dismissal was warranted.
Appellant argued that ACCFA should not have been excluded as a party, given its role as the actual purchaser through its agency contract.
Appellant challenged the reliance on Article 1883 of the Civil Code, asserting that it misconstrued the nature of the agency relationship and the real buyer.

Appellant referenced Civil Case No. 1024 (ACCFA vs. Pio Bombani, et al.) filed by ACCFA as an interpleader action consolidating claims of sellers, including plaintiff Ortega.
It was noted that the installations paid (a combined P4,000.00) were in fact tendered by ACCFA, further supporting the argument that ACCFA was the real purchaser.
The ACCFA’s motion to strike the third-party complaint highlighted a governmental policy aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, unnecessary delay, and expense by consolidating claims into a single proceeding.

Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the case against defendant FACOMA on the basis of the allegations presented.
Whether the trial court erred in not including the ACCFA as a necessary party by striking out the third-party complaint.
Whether the trial court’s reliance on Article 1883 of the New Civil Code was appropriate given the circumstances surrounding the agency contract and the true nature of the transaction.