Vicente M. Domingo vs.

Gregorio Domingo and Teofilo Purisima (Makasiar, 1971)

FACTS:
Vicente, deceased & represented by his heirs Antonina (wife), Ricardo, Cesar, Ameia, Vicente !r", #a$acion,
%rene and !oseito wanted re$ersa of CA decision orderin& Vicente to pay '(,)*7"+* with interest, p,s mora
and e-empary dama&es"
!,ne (, 19+) . Vicente &ranted /re&orio 0omin&o, a rea estate broker, e-c,si$e a&ency to se his 11,2773
s4,are meter ot for '17),9+2"**" Commission wi be +5 if property is sod by Vicente or anyone ese d,rin& the
6*3day d,ration of the a&ency or if the property is sod by Vicente within three months from the termination of the
a&ency to a p,rchaser from /re&orio d,rin& the contin,ance of the a&ency with notice to Vicente" 7he ne-t day,
/re&orio so,&ht hep of ',risima, promisin& him 8 of the +5 commission"
',risima introd,ced 9scar de :eon to /re&orio as a prospecti$e b,yer, which s,bmitted a $ery ow offer $ers,s
the ori&ina price of the and"
After se$era disc,ssions between 9scar and /re&orio, they setted to offer '1*9,***"**, which was accepted
by Vicente thro,&h the si&nin& of an a&reement of acceptance (;-hibit C)" <pon demand, Vicente asked for
earnest money amo,ntin& to '1,***"**" After some amendments to ;-hibit C, Vicente asked for another s,m of
'1,***"** as additiona earnest money"
=owe$er, on the side, it seems that 9scar has promised /re&orio a >&ift? or >propina?, which amo,nted to
'1,***"** for s,cceedin& to pers,ade Vicente to se the and at a m,ch cheaper rate" 7his was not discosed to
Vicente, and the (
nd
s,m of earnest money was not paid to Vicente"
0,e to financia tro,bes concernin& his brother, howe$er, 9scar wanted to &i$e ,p the ne&otiations for the and,
askin& for the ret,rn of the '1,***"** paid as earnest money from Vicente, and the other '1,***"** paid as a
&ift to /re&orio"
After this, /re&orio went to Vicente and asked for his +5 commission, b,t Vicente ref,sed, and tore his copy of
their a&ency a&reement to pieces" @ot wantin& to f,rther anta&oniAe Vicente, he instead went to the Re&istry of
0eeds in BC and disco$ered that Vicente had eiminated /re&orio in the transaction, sein& the and to 9scarCs
wife Amparo for a ower s,m of '1*2,***"**"
9scar demanded payment of his +5 commission, as the a&ency a&reement was sti in effect (ar&,in& that the
and was sti sod to the same party, and that it was sod within the three monthsC e-tension period)" Vicente on
the other hand ar&,es that /re&orio is not entited to the commission as it was sod to a different party . Amparo
(9scarCs wife)"
CA fo,nd that the e-c,si$e a&ency contract, is &en,ine and that Amparo 0iaA, bein& the wife of 9scar de :eon
makes the sae by Vicente practicay a sae to 9scar since h,sband and wife ha$e common or identica
interests" 7herefore, /re&orio and 7eofio were the >efficient ca,se in the cons,mmation of the sae?"
ISSU!S":
D9@ the fai,re to discose acceptance of the &ift by /re&orio constit,tes fra,d which forfeits the +5 commission
d,e to /re&orio
#ATI$:
The decisive legal provisions are in found Articles 1891 and 1909 of the New Civil Code.
Art. 1891. Every agent is bound to render an account of his transactions and to deliver to the principal whatever he
ay have received by virtue of the agency! even though it ay not be owing to the principal.
Every stipulation e"epting the agent fro the obligation to render an account shall be void.
Art. 1909. The agent is responsible not only for fraud but also for negligence! which shall be #udged with ore less
rigor by the courts! according to whether the agency was or was not for a copensation.
7he aforecited pro$isions demand the ,tmost &ood faith, fideity, honesty, candor and fairness on the part of the a&ent
to his principa" 7he aw imposes ,pon the a&ent the abso,te obi&ation to make a f, discos,re or compete acco,nt
to his principa of a his transactions and other materia facts ree$ant to the a&ency, so m,ch so that the aw as
amended does not aow any stip,ation e-emptin& the a&ent from s,ch an obi&ation and considers s,ch an
e-emption as $oid" 7he d,ty of an a&ent is ikened to that of a tr,stee" 7his is not a technica or arbitrary r,e b,t a
r,e fo,nded on the hi&hest and tr,est principe of moraity as we as of the strictest E,stice
=ence, an a&ent who takes a secret profit in the nat,re of a bon,s, &rat,ity or persona benefit from the $endee,
witho,t re$eain& the same to his principa, the $endor, is &,ity of a breach of his oyaty to the principa and forfeits
his ri&ht to coect the commission from his principa, e$en if the principa does not s,ffer any inE,ry by reason of s,ch
breach of fideity, or that he obtained better res,ts or that the a&ency is a &rat,ito,s one, or that ,sa&e or c,stom
aows it" Fy takin& s,ch profit or bon,s or &ift or propina from the $endee, the a&ent thereby ass,mes a position
inconsistent with that of an a&ent for his principa, who has a ri&ht to treat him, insofar as his commission is
concerned, as if no a&ency had e-isted"
7he fact that Vicente may ha$e been benefited from /re&orioCs ser$ices does not e-c,pate /re&orio, who has ony
himsef to bame for s,ch a res,t" G,rthermore, an a&ent is ikewise iabe for estafa for fai,re to dei$er to his
principa the tota amo,nt coected by him in behaf of his principa and cannot retain the commission pertainin& to
him by s,btractin& the same from his coections"
7he d,ty embodied in Artice 1191 of the @ew Ci$i Code wi not appy if the a&ent or broker acted ony as a
middeman with the task of merey brin&in& to&ether the $endor and $endee, who themse$es thereafter wi ne&otiate
on the terms and conditions of the transaction" @either wo,d the r,e appy if the a&ent or broker had informed the
principa of the &ift or bon,s or profit he recei$ed from the p,rchaser and his principa did not obEect thereto" %n this
case, howe$er, /re&orio was not merey a middeman or broker of Vicente and 9scar" =e was the broker and a&ent
of Vicente ony"
7he fact that the b,yer appearin& in the deed of sae is Amparo, the wife of 9scar, does not materiay ater the
sit,ationH beca,se the transaction, to be $aid, m,st necessariy be with the consent of the h,sband 9scar, who is the
administrator of their conE,&a assets" %t was considered by the Co,rt that 9scar was sti the b,yer"
DISP$SITIV: CA decision reversed% Gregorio to &a' Vicente(s famil' moral damages.
!M Vida