INFANTE V CUNANAN

DOCTRINE:
 Agents found a buyer who was willing to purchase at the
term specified
 Infante took advantage of the services rendered by the
agents but ricked them to be absolved from paying
commission
 This cannot serve as a basis for Infante to escape
payment of the commission agreed upon

FACTS:

1. Infante was the owner of the land with a house built on it.
2. Cunanan and Mijares were contracted to sell the property from
which they would receive commission.
3. Noche agreed to purchase the lot but Infante informed C & M
about her change of mind to sell the lot and had them sign a
document stating that their authority to sell was already
cancelled.
4. Subsequently, Infante sold the lot & house to Noche. Defendants
herein demanded for their commission.
5. RTC ordered Infante to pay commission. CA affirmed.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner was duty bound to pay commission

notwithstanding that authority to sell has been cancelled.

Ruling:
1. A principal may withdraw the authority given to an agent at will.
2. But respondents agreed to cancel the authority given to them
upon assurance by petitioner that should property be sold to
Noche, they would be given commission.
3. That petitioner had changed her mind even if respondents had
found a buyer who was willing to close the deal, is a matter that
would give rise to a legal consequence if respondents agree to
call off to transaction in deference to the request of the
petitioner.
4. Petitioner took advantage of the services of respondents, but
believing that she could evade payment of their commission, she
made use of a ruse by inducing them to sign the deed of
cancellation. This act of subversion cannot be sanctioned and
cannot serve as basis for petitioner to escape payment of the
commissions agreed upon.