Title
Green Valley Poultry and Allied Products, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. L-49395
Decision Date
Dec 26, 1984
Green Valley failed to pay Squibb for delivered goods; Supreme Court ruled Green Valley liable regardless of contract classification (agency or sale).
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49395)

Factual Background

On November 3, 1969, E.R. Squibb & Sons Philippine Corporation and Green Valley Poultry & Allied Products, Inc. executed a letter appointing Green Valley as a non-exclusive distributor for Squibb veterinary products and prescribing a discount and pricing structure, specified territorial exclusivity for Central Luzon and Northern Luzon including Cagayan Valley, a P20,000 bond requirement, and a payment term of sixty days from invoice with prohibition against post-dated checks. Squibb delivered goods to Green Valley pursuant to that arrangement. Green Valley received the goods but did not remit payment to Squibb within the terms claimed by Squibb.

Trial Court Proceedings

Squibb filed suit to collect for goods delivered and unpaid. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Squibb ordering the defendant to pay P48,374.74 plus P96.00 with interest at six percent per annum from the filing of the action, awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of P5,000.00, and taxed costs against the defendant.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The defunct Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals sustained Squibb’s claim that the parties’ agreement constituted a contract obligating Green Valley to pay for the delivered goods according to the credit term invoked by Squibb.

The Parties' Contentions

Green Valley Poultry & Allied Products, Inc. advanced that the letter agreement created a consignment or agency to sell, not a sale; that it never purchased the goods and was obligated only to turn over proceeds less commission or to return unsold goods; and that because it sold goods on credit and had not collected from its purchasers the action by Squibb was premature. E.R. Squibb & Sons Philippine Corporation maintained that the agreement was a contract of sale and that Green Valley was therefore bound to pay for the goods upon expiration of the sixty-day credit period.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Court declined to rest its decision on categorizing the contract strictly as sale or agency. The Court reasoned that liability was clear under either characterization. Adopting the respondent’s alternative theory that the contract might be an agency, the Court applied the rule governing commission agents and credit sales without authority.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court invoked Art. 1905, Civil Code, which provides that a commission agent cannot, without the express or implied consent

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.