Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25463)
Facts:
Emerito M. Ramos v. The Honorable Court of Appeals (Special First Division) and Cesario P. Calanoc, G.R. No. L-25463, April 04, 1975, the Supreme Court First Division, Makalintal, C.J., writing for the Court.
In late 1953 Emerito M. Ramos, trading as FIMCO (Farm Implement & Machinery Co.), contracted with the Board of Liquidators for the purchase of 20,000 metric tons of rice from the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) at P404.00 per ton, F.O.B. Manila. FIMCO arranged resale to Japanese buyers through Nippon Trading Co., Ltd., with the Bank of Tokyo and a Central Bank allocation of dollars ($66.00 per ton) to make up for the peso–dollar price differential. FIMCO then entered resale contracts with local merchants for the imported goods; one such contract was with Mrs. Salustiana Dee (Wellington & Co.) for $1,333,000 (P2,666,000).
Cesario P. Calanoc (plaintiff below) sued Ramos, alleging he had been engaged as broker to procure buyers and that he procured the Wellington & Co. and other contracts; he claimed commissions of 2% on the Wellington transaction and lesser percentages on other transactions. The Court of First Instance (Manila, Branch XII) found Calanoc entitled to commissions totaling P67,540, plus legal interest, attorney’s fees of P10,000 and costs. Ramos appealed.
The Court of Appeals (Special First Division) affirmed on May 20, 1965, accepting testimony that Calanoc brought Mrs. Dee into negotiations, that Ramos had told Calanoc compensation would consist of any overprice above a 23% mark-up, and concluding Calanoc had earned the 2% claimed on the Wellington sale. Ramos petitioned this Court for review, assigning two errors: (1) that the proper commission should be P13,330 (the actual 1/2% overprice Ramos received), not P53,320 (2% of contract), despite the courts below finding a 2% entitlement; and (2) that the award of P10,000 attorney’s fees lacked a specific finding of gross and evident bad faith.
The Supreme Court examined whether it could revisit the Court of Appeals’ factual findings (invoking recognized exceptions to the finality rule), reviewed the record, applied broker jurisprudence, and evaluated the attorney’s fees award under Article 2208 of the Civil Code and relevant precedents. The Court ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court independently review and revise the Court of Appeals’ factual findings in this case?
- Did Calanoc prove entitlement to a 2% commission (P53,320) on the Wellington & Co. contract, or is he limited to the actual overprice Ramos received (P13,330)?
- Was the award of P10,000 as attorney’s fees justified absent a specific finding of gross and evident bad faith, or shou...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)