Title
Silahis Marketing Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 74027
Decision Date
Dec 7, 1989
Silahis Marketing Corp. failed to pay Gregorio de Leon for delivered goods, claiming a commission offset. Court ruled no agreement existed, rejecting Silahis' counterclaim due to lack of evidence and improper legal compensation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 74027)

Key Dates

October–December 1975
Sale and delivery of merchandise under several invoices totaling ₱22,213.75, payable within 30 days.
July 1, 1976
Filing of collection complaint by respondent in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila.
April 1, 1976
Intended return of defective stainless‐steel screen by Borden International.
August 25, 1978
Decision of the CFI partially allowing petitioner’s counterclaim for commission.
March 17, 1986
Decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) dismissing petitioner’s counterclaim.
December 7, 1989
Decision of the Supreme Court affirming the IAC.

Applicable Constitution and Law

1973 Philippine Constitution (in force at decision date)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 1279–1280 on legal compensation

Factual Background

In late 1975, respondent sold goods to petitioner under invoices amounting to ₱22,213.75. Petitioner failed to pay within thirty days despite repeated demands. Respondent then sued in the CFI of Manila for collection of the principal, interest (₱661.03), and attorney’s fees (₱5,000). In its answer, petitioner admitted the debt but asserted:
• A counterclaim by way of a debit memo for ₱22,200, allegedly representing a 20% commission on a ₱111,000 sprocket sale respondent made directly to Dole Philippines, Inc., in breach of an alleged prior arrangement.
• A claim for the return and cancellation of ₱6,000 corresponding to a defective stainless‐steel screen returned by Borden International.

Procedural History

The CFI (Aug. 25, 1978) confirmed petitioner’s liability on the invoices but offset respondent’s claim by the ₱22,200 commission, leaving respondent only ₱13.75 due, plus interest from July 1, 1976. It rejected the defective‐screen counterclaim as time-barred. Respondent appealed to the IAC, which (Mar. 17, 1986) set aside the offset, dismissed petitioner’s counterclaim for lack of factual and legal basis, and reinstated full recovery of the principal, interest, and attorney’s fees in respondent’s favor. Petitioner sought certiorari review before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issue

Whether petitioner’s unliquidated, disputed claim for a commission constitutes a valid basis for legal compensation (set-off) against respondent’s undisputed debt under Civil Code Article 1279.

Analysis

Article 1279 requires that for legal compensation both debts be (1) principal obligations to one another, (2) in money, (3) due, (4) liquidated and demandable, and (5) free of controversy or third-party claims. Here:
• Petitioner admitted the principal debt of ₱22,213.75.
• Its claim for a 20% commission on the Dole sale was vigorously disputed by respondent—no written or verbal agreement bound respondent to pay any commission.
• The debit

...continue reading

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