You are on page 1of 24

Today is Sunday, July 05, 2015

search
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 94753. April 7, 1993.
MANOTOK BROTHERS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA (Branch VI), and SALVADOR
SALIGUMBA, respondents.
Antonio C. Ravelo for petitioner.
Remigio M. Trinidad for private respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; AGENCY; AGENT'S COMMISSION; WHEN ENTITLED'
RULE; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. — In an earlier case, this Court ruled
that when there is a close, proximate and causal connection between the agent's

efforts and labor and the principal's sale of his property, the agent is entitled to a
commission. We agree with respondent Court that the City of Manila ultimately
became the purchaser of petitioner's property mainly through the efforts of private
respondent. Without discounting the fact that when Municipal Ordinance No. 6603
was signed by the City Mayor on May 17, 1968, private respondent's authority had
already expired, it is to be noted that the ordinance was approved on April 26, 1968
when private respondent's authorization was still in force. Moreover, the approval
by the City Mayor came only three days after the expiration of private respondent's
authority. It is also worth emphasizing that from the records, the only party given a
written authority by petitioner to negotiate the sale from July 5, 1966 to May 14,
1968 was private respondent.
DECISION
CAMPOS, JR., J p:
Petitioner Manotok Brothers., Inc., by way of the instant Petition docketed as G.R.
No. 94753 sought relief from this Court's Resolution dated May 3, 1989, which
reads:
"G.R. No. 78898 (Manotok Brothers, Inc. vs. Salvador Saligumba and Court of
Appeals). — Considering the manifestation of compliance by counsel for petitioner
dated April 14, 1989 with the resolution of March 13, 1989 which required the
petitioner to locate private respondent and to inform this Court of the present
address of said private respondent, the Court Resolved to DISMISS this case, as the
issues cannot be joined as private respondent's and counsel's addresses cannot be
furnished by the petitioner to this court." 1
In addition, petitioner prayed for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to prevent
irreparable injury to itself pending resolution by this Court of its cause. Petitioner
likewise urged this Court to hold in contempt private respondent for allegedly
adopting sinister ploy to deprive petitioner of its constitutional right to due process.
Acting on said Petition, this Court in a Resolution 2 dated October 1, 1990 set aside

F. as signatory. 1968. revealed that petitioner herein (then defendant­appellant) is the owner of a certain parcel of land and building which were formerly leased by the City of Manila and used by the Claro M. Jhocson Street. on March 4. The amended petition 3 admitted.R. No.816. petitioner agreed to pay private respondent a five percent (5%) commission in the event the sale is finally consummated and paid. through another letter 8 dated November 16. executed another letter 6 extending the authority of private respondent for 120 days.R. By means of a letter 5 dated July 5. 1967. 78898; admitted the amended petition; and issued a temporary restraining order to restrain the execution of the judgment appealed from.00 for the purchase of the property which private respondent was authorized to sell. Said ordinance however. petitioner authorized herein private respondent Salvador Saligumba to negotiate with the City of Manila the sale of the aforementioned property for not less than P425.the entry of judgment made on May 3. No. 1967. Sampaloc Manila.00.000. by this Court sought relief from this Court's Resolution abovequoted. . at M. manotok bros The facts as found by the appellate court. on April 26. as evidenced by another letter 7 dated June 26. Recto High School. Thereafter. Finally. passed Ordinance No. Petitioner. In the same writing.00.000. With this letter came another extension of 180 days. 1989 in case G. 1968. authorized private respondent to finalize and consummate the sale of the property to the City of Manila for not less than P410. was signed by the City Mayor only on May 17. In the alternative. appropriating the sum of P410. the corporation with Rufino Manotok. 1967. 1966. another extension was granted to him for 120 more days. The Municipal Board of the City of Manila eventually. petitioner begged leave of court to re­file its Petition for Certiorari 4 (G. its President. one hundred eighty three (183) days after the last letter of authorization. 78898) grounded on the allegation that petitioner was deprived of its opportunity to be heard. 6603.

Private respondent.816. which should have amounted to P20.On January 14. Dominador Bisbal. to present the . the author of the Ordinance which appropriated the money for the purchase of said property.50.00 having been made. The initial payment of P200. As a counterclaim. the parties signed the deed of sale of the subject property. The meeting was set precisely to ask private respondent to negotiate the sale of the school lot and building to the City of Manila. the PTA president for 1967­1968 of the Claro M. testified as to the efforts undertaken by him to ensure the consummation of the sale.000. private respondent never received any commission. salvador saligumba Thereafter. 1969. instead it was Filomeno E. Recto High School. Consequently.554. 1969 by a check in the amount of P210. alleging that he had successfully negotiated the sale of the property. He claimed that it was because of his efforts that the Municipal Board of Manila passed Ordinance No. then plaintiff. private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner. This was due to the refusal of petitioner to pay private respondent said amount as the former does not recognize the latter's role as agent in the transaction. Recto High School.000.00 as attorney's fees and for moral damages. principal of C. Atty. It denied the claim of private respondent on the following grounds: (1) private respondent would be entitled to a commission only if the sale was consummated and the price paid within the period given in the respective letters of authority; and (2) private respondent was not the person responsible for the negotiation and consummation of the sale. was also present.M. the purchase price was fully satisfied with a second payment on April 8. on June 29. petitioner (then defendant­appellant) demanded the sum of P4. He recounted that it first began at a meeting with Rufino Manotok at the office of Fructuoso Ancheta. Huelgas. Private respondent then went to Councilor Mariano Magsalin. Notwithstanding the realization of the sale. 6603 which appropriated the sum for the payment of the property subject of the sale. 1969. Petitioner claimed otherwise. trial ensued. then president of the PTA.00.

1968. The latter office approved the report and so private respondent went back to the City Mayor's Office. he went to the City Mayor's Office. which was to remain in force until May 14. Fructuoso Ancheta and Atty. at which meeting the latter told him that he would be given a "gratification" in the amount of P20. On rebuttal. 1968. 1967 he followed up the sale from the start with Councilor Magsalin until after it was approved by the Mayor on May 17. but private respondent did not receive a single centavo as commission.000. Subsequently. Bisbal said that Huelgas was present in the PTA meetings from 1965 to 1967 but he never offered to help in the acquisition of said property. which indorsed the matter to the Superintendent of City Schools of Manila. He. Atty. Petitioner received the full payment of the purchase price. Ordinance No. Dominador Bisbal both testified acknowledging the authority of private respondent regarding the transaction. While these transpired and his letters of authority expired. Moreover. After securing the report of the appraisal committee. also said that he came to know Rufino Manotok only in August.project. Huelgas testified to the effect that after being inducted as PTA president in August. 6603 was passed by the Municipal Board for the appropriation of the sum corresponding to the purchase price. 1968. Rufino Manotok. he testified that Huelgas was aware of the fact that it was private respondent who was negotiating the sale of the subject property. . Rufino Manotok confirmed that he knew Huelgas and that there was an agreement between the two of them regarding the "gratification". 1968. He also went to the Assessor's Office for appraisal of the value of the property. on April 26.00 if the sale was expedited. which thereafter indorsed the same to the Municipal Board for appropriation. manotok Petitioner presented as its witnesses Filomeno Huelgas and the petitioner's President. Rufino Manotok always renewed the former's authorization until the last was given.

1989 dismissing petitioner's case on the ground that the issues raised in the case at bar cannot be joined. 1987. 1989.540. Subsequently.R. It appearing that the abovementioned Resolution was returned unserved with the postmaster's notation "unclaimed". this Court in another Resolution 12 dated March 13. 1990 private respondent filed a Motion to Execute the said judgment before the court of origin. Acting on said Petition. Upon discovery of said development. the above­entitled case became final and executory by the entry of judgment on May 3.00 by way of his commission fees with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until payment. 1987 before this Court. petitioner seasonably elevated its case on Petition for Review on Certiorari on August 10. this Court issued a Resolution dated May 3.Thereafter. it opted to manifest that private respondent's last address was the same as that address to which this. 78898. docketed as G. No. 10 Its Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by respondent appellate court in a Resolution dated June 22. required petitioner to locate private respondent and to inform this Court of the present address of private respondent within ten (10) days from notice. petitioner verified with the court of origin the circumstances by which private . this Court issued a Minute Resolution 11 dated August 31. The lower court also ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the amount of P4. 1987 ordering private respondent to comment on said Petition. 9 Petitioner appealed said decision.00 as and for attorney's fees. As petitioner was unsuccessful in its efforts to locate private respondent. but to no avail. on January 9. the then Court of First Instance (now. Thereafter. Court's Resolution was forwarded. Thus. 1989. Respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the said ruling of the trial court. Regional Trial Court) rendered judgment sentencing petitioner and/or Rufino Manotok to pay unto private respondent the sum of P20.000.

We rule in favor of private respondent. No. 1990. opposes petitioner's position maintaining that it was because of his efforts that a purchase actually materialized between the parties. he is not entitled to a commission. 1990. 78898). for the sole reason that when the Deed of Sale was finally executed. its petition to re­file its Petition for Certiorari (G. said petition was amended to include. By this alone. this Court ruled in favor of claimant­agent. it would seem that private respondent is not entitled to any commission as he was not successful in consummating the sale between the parties. The sole issue to be addressed in this petition is whether or not private respondent is entitled to the five percent (5%) agent's commission. despite the expiration of his authority. 14 In the said case. his extended authority had already expired. Court of Appeals. on August 30. It is petitioner's contention that as a broker. Sensing a fraudulent scheme employed by private respondent. Accordingly. on the other hand. the exception being that enunciated in the case of Prats vs. At first sight.respondent obtained knowledge of the resolution of this Court. in the alternative. if the broker does not succeed in bringing the minds of the purchaser and the vendor to an agreement with respect to the sale. On September 13. private respondent's job is to bring together the parties to a transaction. one might be misled to believe that this case squarely falls within the ambit of the established principle that a broker or agent is not entitled to any commission until he has successfully done the job given to him. Private respondent. . when a sale was finally consummated.R. 13 Going deeper however into the case would reveal that it is within the coverage of the exception rather than of the general rule. petitioner then instituted this instant Petition for Relief.

" 15 (Emphasis supplied.00) by way of compensation for his efforts and assistance in the transaction. From the foregoing.In its decision in the abovecited case. xxx xxx xxx Under the circumstances. however.25 per square meter which was the very same price counter­offered by the Social Security System and accepted by him in July. which however was finalized and consummated after the expiration of his exclusive authority . In the case at bar. with more reason.000. this Court said. although such finalization was after the expiration of Prats' extended exclusive authority. . the municipality would not have anything to pass and the Mayor would not have anything to approve. . it follows then that private respondent herein. While in Prats vs. 1967 when he alone was dealing exclusively with the said buyer long before Prats came into the picture but that on the other hand Prats' efforts somehow were instrumental in bringing them together again and finally consummating the transaction at the same price of P3. the agent was not even the efficient procuring cause in bringing about the sale.25 per square meter. unlike in the case at bar.). xxx xxx xxx The court has noted on the other hand that Doronila finally sold the property to the Social Security System at P3. And We quote: "In equity. should be paid his commission. the Court grants in equity the sum of One hundred Thousand Pesos (P100. . the Court notes that petitioner had diligently taken steps to bring back together respondent Doronila and the SSS. Court of Appeals.. that while it was respondent court's (referring to the Court of Appeals) factual findings that petitioner Prats (claimant­agent) was not the efficient procuring cause in bringing about the sale (prescinding from the fact of expiration of his exclusive authority). still petitioner was awarded compensation for his services. it was still held therein that the agent was entitled to compensation. private respondent is the efficient procuring cause for without his efforts.

does not apply squarely to the instant petition. the case of Danon vs. it is to be noted that the ordinance was approved on April 26. 17 on which it heavily anchors its justification for the denial of private respondent's claim. We agree with respondent Court that the City of Manila ultimately became the purchaser of petitioner's property mainly through the efforts of private respondent. on the belief that he alone was transacting the business with the City Government as this was what petitioner made it to appear. compensation will pertain to the one who finds a purchaser and eventually effects the sale. Without the efforts of private respondent then. 1968 was private respondent. Claimant­agent in said case fully comprehended the possibility that he may not realize the agent's commission as he was informed that another agent was also negotiating the sale and thus. 6603 was signed by the City Mayor on May 17. 1966 to May 14. 1968 when private respondent's authorization was still in force. the agent is entitled to a commission.In an earlier case. On the contrary. Such is not the case herein. the only party given a written authority by petitioner to negotiate the sale from July 5. 16 this Court ruled that when there is a close. private respondent's authority had already expired. 1968. While it may be true that Filomeno Huelgas followed up the matter with Councilor Magsalin. the author of Municipal Ordinance No. Moreover. It was actually . 6603 and Mayor Villegas. Contrary to what petitioner advances. Without discounting the fact that when Municipal Ordinance No. the approval by the City Mayor came only three days after the expiration of private respondent's authority. private respondent pursued with his goal of seeing that the parties reach an agreement. Mayor Villegas would have nothing to approve in the first place. It is also worth emphasizing that from the records. proximate and causal connection between the agent's efforts and labor and the principal's sale of his property. Brimo. his intervention regarding the purchase came only after the ordinance had already been passed — when the buyer has already agreed to the purchase and to the price for which said property is to be paid.

160. Supra. Rollo of G. p. 94753. p. Ibid. 69.. Regalado and Nocon. 156. No. Imperial.private respondent's labor that had set in motion the intervention of the third party that produced the sale. Ibid.R. Ibid. note 4 at p. 6. 11. concur.R. 12. the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. p.. 12. 12. Manila in Civil Case No.. p. 76997. Narvasa. 67. Rollo. 5.. Branch VI. JJ . Supra.. Footnotes 1. in the light of the foregoing and finding no reversible error committed by respondent Court. WHEREFORE. Ibid.. C . 13­18. pp. 3.. 161. . 8. hence he should be amply compensated. p. Padilla. pp. Mendoza and concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel C.. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court in its Resolution dated October 1. 78898. 162. 47. Ibid. p. 19­28. 7. Rollo of G. 77. p. p. 4. 1990 is hereby lifted.J . SO ORDERED. No. 10. Ibid. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente V. Decision rendered by then Court of Instance. 2. Herrera and Jorge S. Rollo. 9. note 1 at p.

102784 ROSA LIM.R. pp. Reyes vs. 17.13. 133 (1921). petitioner.. et al. No. 63 SCRA 331 (1975). 14. Manaoat. 2015 search Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G. Ibid. 383­385. 42 Phil. 16. 8 C. 2d 368 (1965).A. 15. Ramos vs. 81 SCRA 360 (1978). Court of Appeals. The Lawphil Project ­ Arellano Law Foundation ϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩ ϩϩϩϩϩϩϩ Today is Sunday.. July 05. February 28. 1996 . Rep.

the said accused with intent to gain. misapplied. judgment is hereby rendered: . an Information for Estafa was filed against petitioner Rosa Lim before Branch 92 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. entitled "People v. to wit: on the date and place aforementioned said accused got and received in trust from said complainant one (1) ring 3. DECISION HERMOSISIMA. 1991. CR No. wilfully. in Quezon City. then and there. but the said accused once in possession thereof and far from complying with her obligation despite repeated demands therefor.1 The Information reads: That on or about the 8th day of October 1987. 1989. CONTRARY TO LAW. the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the amount aforementioned and in such other amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code. respondents. Rosa Lim. did." promulgated on August 30.vs. with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence. with the obligation to sell the same on commission basis and to turn over the proceeds of the sale to said complainant or to return said jewelry if unsold. J. in view of the foregoing.R. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES..00. misappropriated and converted the same to her own personal use and benefit. the trial court rendered judgment. JR.000. On January 26. Philippine Currency.2 After arraignment and trial on the merits. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.35 solo worth P169.: This is a petition to review the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA­G. in the following manner. unlawfully and feloniously defraud one VICTORIA SUAREZ. 10290.

In her final bid to exonerate herself. Sentencing her to suffer the Indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as minimum. THE RULES OF COURT AND THE DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN NOT PASSING UPON THE FIRST AND THIRD ASSIGNED ERRORS IN PETITIONER'S BRIEF; II THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT . Ordering her to return to the offended party Mrs. eight (8) months and twenty­one (21) days to twenty (20) years in accordance with Article 315.4 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the appellate court on September 20. the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction with the modification that the penalty imposed shall be six (6) years. Victoria Suarez the ring or its value in the amount of P169. 1991.3 On appeal. petitioner filed the instant petition for review alleging the following grounds: I THE RESPONDENT COURT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION. paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code; 2.000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case insolvency; and 4. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. 1991.1. Finding accused Rosa Lim GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of estafa as defined and penalized under Article 315. to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum; 3. To pay costs. but the motion was denied in a Resolution dated November 11.

TO MEET THIS STANDARD. THE PROOF AGAINST HIM MUST SURVIVE THE TEST OF REASON; THE STRONGEST SUSPICION MUST NOT BE PERMITTED TO SWAY JUDGMENT. ACCORDING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW. BOTH ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY. . ONLY IF THE JUDGE BELOW AND THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COULD ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED PRECISELY BY THE PERSON ON TRIAL UNDER SUCH AN EXACTING TEST SHOULD SENTENCE THUS REQUIRED THAT EVERY INNOCENCE BE DULY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 195 SCRA 700)5 Herein the pertinent facts as alleged by the prosecution. INDEPENDENTLY OF WHATEVER DEFENSE IS OFFERED BY THE ACCUSED.THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE WAS WAIVED WHEN THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR CROSS­EXAMINED THE PETITIONER AND AURELIA NADERA AND WHEN COMPLAINANT WAS CROSS­EXAMINED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AS TO THE TRUE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEREIN IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT THE TRUE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WAS A SALE OF JEWELRIES AND NOT WHAT WAS EMBODIED IN THE RECEIPT MARKED AS EXHIBIT "A" WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT COURT IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST HEREIN PETITIONER; and III THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY IN THIS CASE THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT "ACCUSATION" IS NOT. THERE IS NEED FOR THE MOST CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE. Austria. SYNONYMOUS WITH GUILT: THE PROSECUTION MUST OVERTHROW THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WITH PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (People v.

thru counsel. Suarez insofar as the pieces of jewelry were concerned. 1987. petitioner signed it. private complainant. petitioner Rosa Lim who had come from Cebu received from private respondent Victoria Suarez the following two pieces of jewelry; one (1) 3.000. 1987. the petitioner took the pieces of jewelry and told Mrs. petitioner returned the bracelet to Vicky Suarez. To prove that she did not agree to the terms of the receipt regarding the sale on commission basis. and that they were lodged at the Williams Apartelle in Timog. Suarez to prepare the "necessary paper for me to sign because I was not yet prepare (d) to buy it. who introduced petitioner to private respondent. The agreement was reflected in a receipt marked as Exhibit "A"6 for the prosecution. As a result. Quezon City. lim Rosa Lim admitted in court that she arrived in Manila from Cebu sometime in October 1987. In response.00. wrote a demand letter7 to petitioner asking for the return of said ring or the proceeds of the sale thereof."9 After the document was prepared. Vicky Suarez filed a complaint for estafa under Article 315. par l(b) of the Revised Penal Code for which the petitioner herein stands convicted. On December 15. petitioner insists . Irked. Quezon City. 1987. Suarez that she would consider buying the pieces of jewelry far her own use and that she would inform the private complainant of such decision before she goes back to Cebu. where Rosa Lim was temporarily billeted. petitioner had no longer any liability to Mrs. but failed to return the diamond ring or to turn over the proceeds thereof if sold. The transaction took place at the Sir Williams Apartelle in Timog Avenue. Petitioner denied that the transaction was for her to sell the two pieces of jewelry on commission basis. wrote a letter8 to private respondent's counsel alleging that Rosa Lim had returned both ring and bracelet to Vicky Suarez sometime in September. petitioner. Thereafter. for which reason. She told Mrs.On or about October 8.35 carat diamond ring worth P169. Petitioner has a different version. together with one Aurelia Nadera. aside from making verbal demands. to be sold on commission basis.00 and one (1) bracelet worth P170.000.

The real agreement between her and the private respondent was a sale on credit with Mrs.that she signed the aforesaid document on the upper portion thereof and not at the bottom where a space is provided for the signature of the person(s) receiving the jewelry. Mrs. she instructed the petitioner to give the pieces of jewelry to Aurelia Nadera who would in turn give them back to the private complainant. Suarez by telephone in order to inform her that she was no longer interested in the ring and bracelet. The petitioner did as she was told and gave the two pieces of jewelry to Nadera as evidenced by a handwritten receipt. Suarez through Aurelia Nadera? Petitioner maintains that she cannot be liable for estafa since she never received the jewelries in trust or on commission basis from Vicky Suarez. was the subject diamond ring returned to Mrs. 1987. what was the real transaction between Rosa Lim and Vicky Suarez a contract of agency to sell on commission basis as set out in the receipt or a sale on credit; and. 10 On October 12. 12 The contention is far from meritorious. petitioner called up Mrs. The receipt marked as Exhibit "A" which establishes a contract of agency to sell on commission basis between Vicky Suarez and Rosa Lim is herein reproduced in order to come to a proper perspective: THIS IS TO CERTIFY. that I received from Vicky Suarez PINATUTUNAYAN KO na aking tinanggap kay ___________ the following jewelries: . as indicated by the bet that petitioner did not sign on the blank space provided for the signature of the person receiving the jewelry but at the upper portion thereof immediately below the description of the items taken. 1987 before departing for Cebu. Suarez as the owner­seller and petitioner as the buyer. 11 Two issues need to be resolved: First. second. Suarez replied that she was busy at the time and so. dated October 12.

any jewelry to other person or persons.35 dolo P 169.000. . araw mula ng ating pagkalagdaan: if I could not sell. kung hindi ko maipagbili ay isasauli ko ang lahat ng alahas sa loob ng taning na panahong nakatala sa itaas; kung maipagbili ko naman ay dagli kong isusulit at .00 total Kabuuan P 339. I shall immediately deliver and account the whole proceeds of sale thereof to the owner of the jewelries at his/her residence; my compensation or commission shall be the over­price on the value of each jewelry quoted above. .000. to be sold in CASH ONLY within .00 in good condition. I am prohibited to sell any jewelry on credit or by installment; deposit. . give for safekeeping: lend.00 1 bracelet 9;170. . pledge or give as security or guaranty under any circumstance or manner.000. I shall return all the jewelry within the period mentioned above; if I would be able to sell. days from date of signing this receipt na nasa mabuting kalagayan upang ipagbili ng KALIWAAN (ALCONTADO) lamang sa loob ng .ang mga alahas na sumusunod: Description Mga Uri Price Halaga l ring 3.

. . . ipagkakatiwala; ipahihiram; isasangla o ipananagot kahit sa anong paraan ang alin mang alahas sa ibang mga tao o tao. at Manila. . . Rosa Lim's signature indeed appears on the upper portion of the receipt immediately below the description of the items taken: We find that this fact does not have the effect of altering the terms of the transaction from a contract of agency to sell on commission basis to a contract of sale. . . Neither does it indicate absence or vitiation of consent thereto on the part of Rosa Lim which would make the contract void or voidable. She. . provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. NILALAGDAAN ko ang kasunduang ito ngayong ika _____ ng dito sa Maynila. The first is when the form is required for the validity of the . thus. This is clear from Article 1356 of the New Civil Code which provides: Contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into.ibibigay ang buong pinagbilhan sa may­ari ng mga alahas sa kanyang bahay tahanan; ang aking gantimpala ay ang mapapahigit na halaga sa nakatakdang halaga sa itaas ng bawat alahas HINDI ko ipinahihintulutang ipa­u­u­tang o ibibigay na hulugan ang alin mang alahas. . ___________________ Signature of Persons who received jewelries (Lagda ng Tumanggap ng mga Alahas) Address: . 19 . there are some provisions of the law which require certain formalities for particular contracts. ilalagak. . . . . . I sign my name this . day of . . . The moment she affixed her signature thereon. . . However. opened herself to all the legal obligations that may arise from their breach. . . petitioner became bound by all the terms stipulated in the receipt.

This is in the case of notarial wills found in Article 805 of the Civil Code. 13 A contract of agency to sell on commission basis does not belong to any of these three categories. . . . . Q: And what was the reply of Vicky Suarez? A: She told me that she could not come to the apartelle since she was very busy. . what did you do thereafter? A: On October 12. . as aforesaid. shall also sign. hence it is valid and enforceable in whatever form it may be entered into. the parties did not execute a notarial will but a simple contract of agency to sell on commission basis. Petitioner insists. So I called up Vicky through telephone and informed her that I am no longer interested in the bracelet and ring and that I will just return it. thus relieving her of any liability. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will. must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself . I was bound for Cebu.contract; the second is when it is required to make the contract effective as against third parties such as those mentioned in Articles 1357 and 1358; and the third is when the form is required for the purpose of proving the existence of the contract. Furthermore. In the case before us. thus making the position of petitioner's signature thereto immaterial. each and every page thereof. except the last. that the diamond ring had been returned to Vicky Suarez through Aurelia Nadera. . to wit: Every will. such as those provided in the Statute of Frauds in article 1403. on the left margin. other than a holographic will. there is only one type of legal instrument where the law strictly prescribes the location of the signature of the parties thereto. however. Rosa Lim testified to this effect on direct examination by her counsel: Q: And when she left the jewelries with you.

00. she asked me if Aurelia was there and when I informed her that Aurelia was there.000. these testimonies were belied by Vicky Suarez herself: Q: It has been testified to here also by both Aurelia Nadera and Rosa Lim that you gave authorization to Rosa Lim to turn over the two (2) pieces of jewelries mentioned in Exhibit "A" to Aurelia Nadera. Weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. I will be exposing myself to a high risk. 14 This was supported by Aurelia Nadera in her direct examination by petitioner's counsel: Q: Do you know if Rosa Lim in fact returned the jewelries? A: She gave the jewelries to me. she instructed me to give the pieces of jewelry to Aurelia who in turn will give it back to Vicky. 15 On rebuttal. Q: And when did Rosa Lim give to you the jewelries? A: Before she left for Cebu. Q: And you gave the two (2) pieces of jewelry to Aurelia Nadera? A: Yes. so if I gave it to Nadera. because at that time Aurelia Nadera is highly indebted to me in the amount of P140. what can you say about that? A: That is not true sir. Q: Why did Rosa Lim give the jewelries to you? A: Rosa Lim called up Vicky Suarez the following morning and told Vicky Suarez that she was going home to Cebu and asked if she could give the jewelries to me. It depends upon its practical effect in inducing .So. Your Honor. 16< The issue as to the return of the ring boils down to one of credibility.

Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: xxx xxx xxx (b) By misappropriating or converting. The reason is that the trial court is in a better position to determine questions involving credibility having heard the witnesses and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. 315. And thus. It contravenes the very terms of Exhibit A. The instruction by the complaining witness to appellant to deliver the ring to Aurelia Nadera is vehemently denied by the complaining witness. It is well settled that we should not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses. goods. Swindling (estafa). thereby committing conversion. The respondent court. . 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. . punishable under Article 315. by delivering the ring to Aurelia without the express authority and consent of the complaining witness. in affirming the trial court. This claim (that the ring had been returned to Suarez thru Nadera) is disconcerting. money. 18 Article 315. both the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave weight to the testimony of Vicky Suarez that she did not authorize Rosa Lim to return the pieces of jewelry to Nadera. appellant assumed the right to dispose of the jewelry as if it were hers. who declared that she did not authorize and/or instruct appellant to do so. a clear breach of trust. unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.belief on the part of the judge trying the case. par. par. Revised Penal Code. or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission.17 In the case at bench. or for administration. said: . We shall not disturb this finding of the respondent court. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make . 1(b). to the prejudice of another.

First. xxx xxx xxx The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under this subdivision are as follows. WHEREFORE. or other personal property be received by the offender in trust. such misappropriation obviously caused damage and prejudice to the private respondent. JJ.. concurs in the result. even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money. are present in the case at bench.. the petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Second. or on commission. Padilla. J. . or other property.delivery of or to return the same. Paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. goods. third. or for administration. SO ORDERED. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of. petitioner misappropriated or converted the jewelry to her own use; and. or to return. the same; (2) That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender (Note: The 4th element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the defendant) 19 All the elements of estafa under Article 315. concur. (1) That money. Vitug. Bellosillo and Kapunan. Costs against petitioner. goods. the receipt marked as Exhibit "A" proves that petitioner Rosa Lim received the pieces of jewelry in trust from Vicky Suarez to be sold on commission basis.

3 Ibid. 1989. p. 93. 7­8. 50. p. 168. p. p.. 6 Records. 1989. 18 People v. Q­89­2216. Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines. pp. p. "2­a"; Records." supra. p. 12 Exhibit "1. . 7 Exhibit "B"; Records. 11. November 16. The Revised Penal Code. 1989. 13­14. 1993 ed. 5. 49. p. 17 Francisco. p.. June 29. p. 13 Tolentino. 1989. 15 TSN. 658. 8 Exhibit "C"; Records. p. Book Two. Arturo.Footnotes 1 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 13th ed. p. Luis B. November 21. 4 Rollo. June 29. 9. Volume IV. 10 Exhibits "1". 2 Records. 230 SCRA 298 [1994]. 11 Exhibits "2". Jr. 5 Rollo. 66. Ricardo J. Lagrosa. p.. 16 TSN.. 14 TSN. 1991 ed.. p. 543. p. 19 Reyes. 9 TSN. 12. Evidence. 1. pp. 49.. 51.. "1­b"; Records.

The Lawphil Project ­ Arellano Law Foundation ϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩϩ ϩϩϩϩ .