Title
National Marketing Corp. vs. Tan
Case
G.R. No. L-17074
Decision Date
Mar 31, 1964
NAMARCO breached a valid contract with the Federation after partial performance, leading to a legal dispute over specific performance. The Supreme Court upheld the contract's validity, ruling NAMARCO could not unilaterally modify it.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17074)

Applicable Law and Key Dates

The case was decided on March 31, 1964, and thus the applicable constitutional framework is the 1935 Philippine Constitution. The contract at the center of the dispute was executed on November 16, 1959, following a Board resolution passed on November 3, 1959. Subsequent relevant resolutions included Resolution No. 524 (November 3, 1959), Resolution No. 530 (November 19, 1959), and Resolution No. 14 (January 12, 1960). The Federation filed the action for specific performance and preliminary injunction in 1960, and a supplemental answer indicated a ruling favoring the Federation on October 15, 1960.

Background of the Contract and Transactions

The Federation requested the President of the Philippines to intervene in having NAMARCO allocate $2,001,031.00 from its $10,000,000.00 special allocation granted by the Central Bank to import commodities for distribution to Federation members. The conditions for this allocation were: (a) cash payment by the Federation of procurement cost plus 5% markup; (b) Federation to bear handling and storage charges; and (c) distribution in accordance with NAMARCO’s rules. The NAMARCO Board passed Resolution No. 524 authorizing importation, followed by a contract executed between NAMARCO and the Federation on November 16, 1959. The Federation paid an advance and subsequent payments exceeding P2,000,000.00 for imported goods stored in the Pasig River Bodegas under approved arrangements.

Dispute Arises and Litigation Initiated

After a change in NAMARCO's management in January 1960, the corporation refused to release goods to the Federation as stipulated in the contract, opting instead to distribute them to other outlets. The Federation sought specific performance and a preliminary injunction to restrain NAMARCO from reallocating the goods and removing them from storage. The Court of First Instance issued the injunction on the ground that the Federation had complied with contractual payment obligations by depositing the estimated costs plus markup into court for the release of goods.

NAMARCO’s Defenses and Contentions

NAMARCO challenged the contract on several grounds:

  1. It was executed without proper authority from the Board and lacked Auditor General approval.
  2. Resolution No. 530 allegedly prohibited “forward sale” transactions, rendering the contract void or modified.
  3. The contract’s distribution scheme conflicted with NAMARCO’s regulations requiring allocation only to regular NAMARCO outlets.
  4. The Federation breached the contract terms.

Court’s Analysis on Contract Validity and Approvals

The court found that the contract was validly authorized as it stemmed from Resolution No. 524, which was passed following the President’s endorsement. Furthermore, the Board gave formal approval to the contract on January 12, 1960, through Resolution No. 14, which specifically approved the sale contract subject to the earlier resolutions. The court held that Resolution No. 530 did not nullify or modify the contract terms unilaterally, explaining that the resolution allowed distribution to regular outlets, which included Federation members as admitted by NAMARCO. Additionally, the contract provision permitting distribution by the Federation did not contravene Resolution No. 530.

Auditor General’s Non-Disapproval

As to the Auditor General’s approval, the contract was forwarded to the Auditor for examination according to Administrative Order No. 290. The Auditor deferred action pending the outcome of the pending litigation and never disapproved the contract. Thus, the lack of Auditor General approval was not deemed fatal to the contract's validity.

Federation’s Compliance and Contract

...continue reading

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