Case Summary (G.R. No. 115838)
Factual Background
• January 24, 1984 – Constante, “representing co-owners,” authorized Artigo by handwritten note to broker the sale of four lots at an asking price of ₱23,000,000, with 5% commission.
• Artigo procured Times Transit Corp. as buyer for two lots (Nos. 14 and 15).
• May 1985 – Sale allegedly consummated at ₱7,050,000. Artigo received partial commission of ₱48,893.76 but alleged balance due of ₱303,606.24.
• De Castros maintained that the actual price was ₱3,600,000 (as per deed of sale) and that other agents contributed to the sale.
Procedural History
• May 29, 1989 – Artigo filed Civil Case No. Q-89-2631 in RTC to collect unpaid commission, moral damages (₱25,000), attorney’s fees (₱45,000), and costs.
• December 20, 1991 – RTC ruled in favor of Artigo, granting the full 5% commission based on ₱7,050,000, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
• May 4, 1994 – CA (Francisco, Montoya, Barcelona) affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
• July 18, 2002 – Petition under Rule 45 filed in the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether failure to implead all co-owners as indispensable parties warrants dismissal.
- Whether Artigo’s claim was extinguished by full payment, waiver, or abandonment.
- Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in admitting and weighing evidence to fix the purchase price at ₱7,050,000.
- Whether perjured testimony and incompetent evidence vitiate the commission award.
- Whether moral damages and attorney’s fees were improperly awarded.
- Whether De Castros themselves should recover moral and exemplary damages and fees.
Analysis on Indispensable Parties
• Agency contract was between Constante (as owner and representative) and Artigo. Solidary liability under Civil Code Art. 1915 makes all co-owners jointly liable.
• Solidary debtors need not all be impleaded (Civil Code Art. 1216; Operators, Inc. vs. American Biscuit Co.).
• No prejudice or gap in relief; petition to dismiss for non-joinder was properly denied.
Analysis on Extinguishment of Claim
• Partial commission payment does not extinguish the balance; mere receipt is distinct from acceptance that waives the remainder (Civil Code Art. 1235; Tolentino).
• The alleged “other agents” were employees of the buyer and their involvement does not alter the original agency contract’s terms.
• Artigo’s suit was filed within ten years (Civil Code Art. 1144) and four years from default; laches is inapplicable when action is within prescriptive period (Agra vs. PNB).
Analysis on Determination of Purchase Price
• The dispute over whether the selling price was ₱7,050,000 or ₱3,600,000 presents a question of fact.
• Under Rule 45, Supreme Court cannot re-weigh factual evidence or probative value; factual findings of RTC and CA
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 115838)
Antecedent Facts
- On January 24, 1984, Constante A. De Castro (representing himself and co-owners) executed a handwritten note authorizing Francisco Artigo as real estate broker to sell four lots at EDSA corner New York & Denver Streets, Cubao, Quezon City, at an asking price of ₱23,000,000 with a 5% commission on a first-come, first-serve basis.
- Artigo located Times Transit Corporation (represented by its president Mr. Rondaris) as purchaser of two lots (Nos. 14 and 15) and facilitated negotiations leading to a sale in May 1985.
- Artigo received ₱48,893.76 as partial commission but maintained that, based on the actual purchase price of ₱7,050,000, his full 5% commission was ₱352,500, leaving a balance of ₱303,606.24.
- On May 29, 1989, Artigo filed Civil Case No. Q-89-2631 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 80, Quezon City, to collect the unpaid commission balance.
- The De Castros contested the claim, asserting (a) other agents were more instrumental in the ultimate sale, (b) the deed of sale reflected a purchase price of ₱3,600,000, limiting Artigo’s claim to ₱180,000, and (c) Artigo’s partial payment discharged his obligation in equity.
Trial Court Decision
- The RTC, Branch 80, Quezon City, on December 20, 1991, found the De Castros jointly and solidarily liable to Artigo for:
- ₱303,606.24 unpaid commission;
- ₱25,000 moral damages;
- ₱45,000 attorney’s fees;
- costs of suit.
- The court held that Artigo had validly performed his agency duty by introducing the buyer and facilitating negotiations, and that the true selling price was ₱7,050,000 based on admissible correspondences and testimonies.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 37996 (May 4, 1994), affirmed the RTC decision in toto, holding that:
- A valid contract of agency existed between Constante (as principal) and Artigo (as agent), entitling Artigo to 5% commission on the actual sale price.
- It was unnecessary to implead all co-owners as indispens