Alfred Hahn vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 113074 January 22, 1997

Facts of the case:

Petitioner Alfred Hahn is a Filipino citizen doing business under

the name and style "Hahn-Manila". On the other hand, private
respondent (BMW) is a nonresident foreign corporation existing under
the laws of the former Federal Republic of Germany, with principal
office at Munich, Germany.

On March 7, 1967, petitioner executed in favor of private

respondent a "Deed of Assignment with Special Power of Attorney.
Per the agreement, the parties "continue[d] business relations as has
been usual in the past without a formal contract."

But on February 16, 1993, in a meeting with a BMW

representative and the president of Columbia Motors Corporation
(CMC), Jose Alvarez, petitioner was informed that BMW was
arranging to grant the exclusive dealership of BMW cars and
products to CMC, which had expressed interest in acquiring the
same.

On February 24, 1993, petitioner received confirmation of the

information from BMW which, in a letter, expressed dissatisfaction
with various aspects of petitioner's business, mentioning among other
things, decline in sales, deteriorating services, and inadequate
showroom and warehouse facilities, and petitioner's alleged failure to
comply with the standards for an exclusive BMW dealer.

Nonetheless, BMW expressed willingness to continue business

relations with the petitioner on the basis of a "standard BMW
importer" contract, otherwise, it said, if this was not acceptable to
petitioner, BMW would have no alternative but to terminate
petitioner's exclusive dealership effective June 30, 1993.

Because of Hahn's insistence on the former business relations,

BMW withdrew on March 26, 1993 its offer of a "standard importer
contract" and terminated the exclusive dealer relationship effective
June 30, 1993.

On April 29, 1993, BMW proposed that Hahn and CMC jointly
import and distribute BMW cars and parts.

Hahn found the proposal unacceptable. On May 14, 1993, he

filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against BMW
to compel it to continue the exclusive dealership.

Issue:
1) Whether or not petitioner Alfred Hahn is the agent or
distributor in the Philippines of private respondent BMW?
Ruling:

Yes. Alfred Hahn is the agent or distributor in the Philippines of

private respondent BMW.

The Supreme Court ruled that his agency was shown when
Hahn claimed he took orders for BMW cars and transmitted them to
BMW. Upon receipt of the orders, BMW fixed the down payment and
pricing charges, notified Hahn of the scheduled production month for
the orders, and reconfirmed the orders by signing and returning to
Hahn the acceptance sheets.

Likewise, payment was made by the buyer directly to BMW.

Title to cars purchased passed directly to the buyer and Hahn never
paid for the purchase price of BMW cars sold in the Philippines. Hahn
was credited with a commission equal to 14% of the purchase price
upon the invoicing of a vehicle order by BMW. Upon confirmation in
writing that the vehicles had been registered in the Philippines and
serviced by him, Hahn received an additional 3% of the full purchase
price. Hahn performed after-sale services, including, warranty
services, for which he received reimbursement from BMW. All orders
were on invoices and forms of BMW which the latter admitted in its
petition.

Morever, the Supreme Court gave a distinction between a broker

and an agent. It held that an agent receives a commission upon the
successful conclusion of a sale. On the other hand, a broker earns
his pay merely by bringing the buyer and the seller together, even if
no sale is eventually made.

Thus, Alfred Hahn is the agent or distributor in the Philippines of

private respondent BMW.
 Filipino Pipe VS NAWASA
GR No. L-43446. May 3, 1988

Facts of the Case:

On June 12,1961, the NAWASA entered into a contract with the

plaintiff FPFC for the latter to supply it with 4" and 6" diameter
centrifugally cast iron pressure pipes worth P270,187.50 to be used
in the construction of the Anonoy Waterworks in Masbate and the
Barrio San Andres-Villareal Waterworks in Samar. Defendant paid in
installments and leaving a balance Php 135,507.50 excluding
interest. Having completed the delivery of the pipes, the latter failed
to pay its balance which prompted the plaintiff to file a petition for
collection in the Court of First Instance Manila.
Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered that the
defendant should pay the unpaid balance in NAWASA negotiable
bond, redeemable after 10 years from their issuance with 6% per
annum. NAWASA failed to satisfy the decision. On February 18,
1971, the plaintiff filed another complaint seeking to adjust the unpaid
balance in accordance with Philippine Peso when the previous
decision was rendered. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground of res judicata.
The trial court dismissed the motion on the ground that there
was different cause of action, the second being the adjustment due to
supervening extraordinary inflation of Philippine peso.
After the plaintiff presented voluminous records and statistics,
the court ruled that this is a worldwide occurrence but hardly that the
inflation is extraordinary in the sense contemplated by Art. 1250.
On appeal, CA raised the matter to the SC due to pure legal
question.
Issue:

Whether or not there is justification of adjusting the judgement

value on the ground of extraordinary inflation?
Ruling:

No. There isnt justification of adjusting the judgement on the

ground of extraordinary inflation.

The trial court held that extraordinary inflation exists "when

there is a decrease or increase in the purchasing power of the
Philippine currency which is unusual or beyond the common
fluctuation in the value said currency, and such decrease or increase
could not have reasonably foreseen or was manifestly beyond
contemplation the the parties at the time of the establishment of the
obligation. (Tolentino Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil
Code Vol. IV, p. 284.)

It likewise held that though, appellant's voluminous records and

statistics proved that there has been a decline in the purchasing
power of the Philippine peso, this downward fall of the currency
cannot be considered "extraordinary." It is simply a universal trend
that has not spared our country.
 Tibajia Jr. et al VS Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 100290 June 4, 1993

Facts of the case:

Eden Tan, respondent filed a suit for collection of a sum of

money against the plaintiff, Tibajia spouses. A writ of attachment was
issued by the trial court on 17 August 1987. In view of this, the latter
delivered to Deputy Sheriff Bolima the total money judgment in
cashiers check and cash.

The respondent refused to accept the payment made by the

plaintiff and instead insisted that the garnished funds deposited with
the cashier of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila be
withdrawn to satisfy the judgment obligation. The plaintiff filed a
motion to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the judgment
debt had already been paid. The motion was denied hence, this
petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the payment in cashiers check is considered
payment in legal tender?

Ruling:

No. Payment in cashiers check is not considered payment in

legal tender.
A creditor may validly refuse payment by check, whether it be a
managers, cashiers or personal check. Article 1249 of the Civil
Code provides that the payment of debts in money shall be made in
the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such
currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines.

The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of

exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of
payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault
of the creditor they have been impaired.

In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation

shall be held in abeyance.

Further, the Court stressed that, We are not, by this decision,

sanctioning the use of a check for the payment of obligations over the
objection of the creditor.