Case Digest (G.R. No. 95909)
Facts:
Uniland Resources v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 95909, August 16, 1991, First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.Uniland Resources (petitioner), a licensed real estate broker, claims a five percent broker’s commission from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) (respondent) for introducing a buyer for one of two mortgaged Makati lots. The two lots had been mortgaged by Marinduque Mining Corporation first to Caltex and later, as a second mortgage, to DBP; the Marinduque account was transferred to the Assets Privatization Trust (APT). Caltex foreclosed for nonpayment, and APT/DBP offered the right of redemption for public bidding.
On May 5, 1987 a DBP bidding produced only one bid (Counsel Realty Corp.) for the warehouse lot; DBP rejected it because bidding guidelines required adequate combined bids. DBP redeemed the two lots from Caltex on May 8, 1987. New bidding guidelines were set and on July 30, 1987 another public bidding again yielded a single bid (Clarges Realty Corp., an affiliate of Glaxo Philippines) for the warehouse lot; no bid was received for the office building lot. DBP approved the sale of the warehouse lot to Clarges and documented the sale on November 23, 1987. The office building lot was later sold by negotiated sale to the Bank of the Philippines (as trustee) for P17,460,000, and DBP paid a five percent broker’s fee to DBP Management Corporation for that transaction.
Petitioner had earlier sent letters to DBP and APT seeking accreditation as DBP’s broker and volunteered the name of its client, Glaxo Philippines, as an interested purchaser. After the warehouse sale, petitioner demanded payment of the broker’s fee; DBP’s Bidding Committee denied the claim on November 18, 1987. Petitioner filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 105, Quezon City, which on October 25, 1988 ordered DBP to pay P1,203,500 (five percent of the sale price) plus legal interest and P50,000 attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (Ninth Division, ponente Justice Alicia V. Sempio Diy) reversed and dismissed the complaint; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May this Court review and re-evaluate the Court of Appeals’ factual findings in a Rule 45 petition for certiorari?
- Was petitioner entitled to a broker’s commission as agent of DBP when DBP never expressly accredited petitioner and allegedly never agreed to be bound?
- If no legal agency existed, is petitioner nevertheless entitled to equitable compensation for services rend...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)