Title
Domingo vs. Domingo
Case
G.R. No. L-30573
Decision Date
Oct 29, 1971
Broker Gregorio forfeited 5% commission for undisclosed P1,000 gift from buyer, breaching loyalty; liable to sub-agent Teofilo; moral damages awarded to principal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30573)

Factual Background

• On June 2, 1956, Vicente M. Domingo granted Gregorio Domingo an exclusive agency to sell Lot No. 883, Piedad Estate (≈88,477 sqm) at ₱2.00 per sqm (₱176,954.00) for a 5% commission. The term was 30 days, plus a three-month extension if a buyer introduced during the agency consummated the sale thereafter.
• On June 3, 1956, Gregorio engaged Purisima as sub-agent (50% of Gregorio’s 5% commission). Purisima introduced Oscar de Leon, whose initial offer was below ₱2.00 per sqm. Through negotiations (Exhibits B, C, D), Vicente agreed to sell at ₱1.20 per sqm (₱109,000.00), with earnest money installments of ₱1,000.00 and promissory adjustments to deed-of-sale dates.
• Oscar de Leon secretly gave Gregorio a ₱1,000 “propina” for securing the reduced price without disclosing this to Vicente. The final deed of sale (Exhibit G, September 17, 1956) listed Amparo Diaz (Oscar’s wife) as vendee, but the transaction was effectively Oscar’s.
• When Gregorio demanded his 5% commission (Exhibit H), Vicente refused, tore up the agency contract (Exhibit A), and insisted no sale to Gregorio’s buyer had taken place.

Procedural History

Trial Court: Awarded Gregorio ₱2,307.50 (5% of ₱109,000.00), Purisima ₱2,607.50, interest, ₱1,000 moral damages, ₱500 attorney’s fees, plus costs.
Court of Appeals (Special Division of Five, March 12, 1969): Affirmed.
This Appeal: Petitioners-Appellants sought reversal.

Issues Presented

  1. Does Gregorio’s failure to disclose the ₱1,000 propina to his principal constitute fraud and forfeit his right to the 5% commission?
  2. Is Purisima entitled to recover his share of the commission directly from Vicente or only from Gregorio?
  3. Were the awards of legal interest, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs proper?

Applicable Law

• New Civil Code (effective 1950):
– Art. 1891: Agent must render full account and deliver to principal all received by virtue of the agency; stipulations exempting this duty are void.
– Art. 1909: Agent is liable for fraud and negligence, judged more strictly when agency is for compensation.
• Spanish Civil Code (predecessor) and consistent Philippine jurisprudence impose the highest good faith, forbidding secret profits or bonuses without principal’s knowledge and consent.

Secret Profit and Broker’s Duty

Under Art. 1891–1909, an agent owes absolute loyalty and candor. Acceptance of any secret bonus from a third party, undisclosed to the principal, is a breach of fiduciary duty. Jurisprudence holds that an undisclosed propina “corrupts the duty to serve only the principal’s interests” and compels forfeiture of the agent’s commission, irrespective of actual harm or benefit.

Forfeiture of Commission

Gregorio’s acceptance of a ₱1,000 gift from Oscar de Leon without Vicente’s knowledge constituted a secret profit. This placed Gregorio in a position “wholly inconsistent” with his agency. Consequently, he forfeits any right to his 5% commission and must return any advances received (₱300).

Liability of Sub-Agent Purisima

Purísima’s contract was with Gregorio alone; Vicente never contracted with him. Therefore, Purísima may recover only from Gregorio. Since Gregorio received ₱1,300 total (₱30



    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.