Case Digest (G.R. No. 143978)
Facts:
Manuel B. Tan, Gregg M. Tecson and Alexander Saldana, Petitioners, vs. Eduardo R. Gullas and Norma S. Gullas, Respondents, G.R. No. 143978, December 03, 2002, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares-Santiago, J., writing for the Court.The Gullases owned a 104,114 sq. m. parcel in Minglanilla, Cebu (TCT No. 31465). On June 29, 1992 they executed a non‑exclusive special power of attorney in favor of Manuel B. Tan (a licensed real estate broker) and his associates Gregg M. Tecson and Alexander Saldana, authorizing them to negotiate the sale at P550.00 per square meter for a 3% commission, the authority effective for one month. On the same day Tan contacted Engineer Edsel Ledesma, who introduced Tan to representatives of the Sisters of Mary of Banneaux, Inc., a religious organization seeking property in the area.
Tan and Ledesma showed the land to the Sisters on July 1, 1992; the Sisters asked the price be reduced to P530.00/sqm. The Sisters met Eduardo Gullas in his office; they learned at that meeting that he owned the land. On July 3, 1992 the Gullases agreed to sell to the Sisters and executed a separate special power of attorney in favor of Eufemia Canete giving authority to sell at P200.00/sqm. On July 17, 1992 Canete executed a deed of sale conveying the property to the Sisters for P20,822,800.00 (P200/sqm); taxes were paid and TCT No. 75981 issued to the buyer.
On August 28, 1992 petitioners filed suit against the Gullases for recovery of brokerage commissions (claimed at P1,655,412.60), moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, alleging they were the efficient procuring cause and that the Gullases, in bad faith, dealt directly with the buyer. The Gullases countered that another broker, Roberto Pacana, had introduced the Sisters of Mary earlier and that petitioners were not the procuring cause; they produced an undated and unnotarized special power of attorney purportedly in Pacana’s favor.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 22, Cebu City) found for petitioners and ordered the Gullases to pay jointly and severally P624,684.00 as brokers’ fee with legal interest at 6% per annum from filing, and P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees; the court dismissed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that petitioners were not entitled to brokerage commission?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioners moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and the interest ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)