#6 INFANTE vs. CUNANAN  CA affirmed.

GR # L-5180 ISSUE: WON Cunanan and Mijares are still entitled of commission even after
DATE: August 31, 1953 signing a document which involved the cancellation of their authority - YES
By: Julpha Policina HELD/RATIO:
Topic:  Cunanan and Mijares claim that while they agreed to cancel the written
Petitioners: Consejo Infante authority given to them, they did so merely upon the verbal assurance
Respondents: Jose Cunanan, Juan Mijares, CA 2 nd Division given by Infante that should the property be sold to Noche, they would
Ponente: Bautista Angelo, J. be given the commission agreed upon
SUMMARY:  However, it is a well settled rule that “"When the terms of an agreement
Infante asked services of Cunana and Mijares to sell her lot on a commission basis. have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all
They found Noche as interested buyer but upon introduction to each other, Infante those terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the parties and their
expressed that she is not interested to sell the property anymore and made successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other
Cunanan and Mijares sign deed of cancellation of authority. After some time, than the contents of the writing."
Infante then sold her property to the same Noche. Hence, the action for collection  There are exceptions to this rule but this case doesn’t fall to any of the
of commission of Cunanan and Mijares. SC ruled that even though there was a exceptions.
cancellation of the authority already, it could be conculed that it was a strategy of  YET, the court still held that perhaps it is by way of stratagem that Infante
Infante for her selfish interest. Infante still liable to pay. advised that she was no longer selling the property and made them sign
DOCTRINE: the document for cancellation of authority then selling it to same
Act of subversion cannot serve as basis to escape payment of commission agreed prospected buyer.
upon by the principal to the agent.  This constitutes of taking advantage of the benevolence of the other and
FACTS: acts in a manner that would promote her own selfish interest.
 Infante was the owner of 2 parcels of land with a house built thereon  This act amounts to bad faith. She took advantage of the services
 Infante contracted services of Cunanan and Mijares to sell the property rendered by Cunanan and Mijares believing she could evade payment of
for P30k subject to condition that the purchaser would assume the commission by inducing them to sign the cancellation.
mortgage existing in favor of Rehabilitation Finance Corp. infant to pay
5% commission on the purchase price plus whatever overprice they may
obtain for the property
 Cunanan and Mijares found Pio Noche but upon introducing Noche to
Infante, Infante informed them that she is not selling the property
anymore and made them sign a document cancelling the authority to sell
 After some time, Infante dealt directly with Noche selling to him the
property for P31k
 Cunanan and Mijares, upon learning about the sale, demanded for
payment of their commission but Infante refused
 Cunanan and Mijares brought action for the sum of money
 Infante: admitted having contracted services of Cunanan and Mijares
o Stated she only agreed to pay P1.2k commission only when
they buy a property somewhere in Taft Ave. after selling her
property
o That even they sold her property, they sold the property at Taft
Ave. to another party therefore not entitled to commission
 RTC: In favor of Cunanan and Mijares and ordered Infante to pay P2.5k