Gold Star Mining Co. v.

Lim-Jimena, 25 SCRA 597 (1968)

- DOCTRINE
- PRINCIPAL CAN SUE THE PERSON WITH WHOM HIS AGENT DEALS
WITH. — Where plaintiff's co-owner of mining claims transferred the same to
defendant mining company (without disclosing that plaintiff was his co-owner
although the mining company had knowledge of this fact), said co-owner shall
be deemed to have acted as plaintiff's agent with respect to plaintiff's share of
the claims. Hence, plaintiff has an action against the mining company,
pursuant to Article 1883 of the new Civil Code, which provides that the
principal may sue the person with whom the agent dealt with in his agent's
name, when the transaction "involves things belonging to the principal." And
where the evidence overwhelmingly established the fact that despite demand
by plaintiff, the mining company refused to recognize plaintiff's right to the
payment of his 1/2 share of the royalties, the plaintiff may implead the
company, in an action led by the former for accounting of the royalties paid by
the company to the co-defendant (plaintiff's co-owner of the mining claims)
and for direct payment to plaintiff of his share of the royalty, because the relief
prayed for cannot be granted without joining the mining company especially in
the face of the attitude it has displayed towards plaintiff.
- FACTS
- In 1937, Ananias Isaac Lincallo bound himself in writing to turn to Victor
Jimena half of the proceeds from all mining claims that he would purchase
with the money to be advanced by the latter. This agreement was later on
modified to include in the equal sharing agreement not only the proceeds
from several mining claims, but also the lands constituting the same, and so
as to bing thereby their “heirs, assigns, or legal representatives.”
- Eventually, the mining rights over parts of the claims were assigned by
Lincallo to Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., while others were assigned to
Marinduque Iron Mines Agents. Meanwhile, Jimena repeatedly apprised both
mining corporations of his interests over the mining claims so assigned and/or
leased by Lincallo. However, both corporations ignored his demands. Jimena
also demanded Lincallo for the payment of the P5,800 he gave Lincallo as
money to purchase the mining claims and the lands, but to no avail. Lincallo
did not only fail to settle his accounts with Jimena, he even transferred about
majority of his share in the royalties due from Gold Star to Gregorio Tolentino,
a salaried employee.
- Hence, on Sept. 2, 1954, Jimena filed a suit against Lincallo for recovery of
his advances and his one-half share in the royalties, and impleaded Gold Star
and Marinduque Iron Mines, as well as Tolentino, later on as defendants. Two
weeks later, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction, preventing
both mining companies from paying royalties during the pendency of the case
to Lincallo, his assigns or legal representatives. Despite of such injunction,
Gold Star still paid P30,691.92 to Lincallo and Tolentino (claiming that a writ
of prelimary attachment filed by Jimena supposedly superseded the
injunction, but the condition to such attachment - the filing of a bond - was not
fulfilled, so it cannot be said that the injunction was superseded).
 - Jimena and Tolentino died successively during the pendency of the case in
the trial court and were, accordingly, substituted by their respective widows
and children.
- CFI decided in favor of Victor Jimena’s heirs, declaring among others that
they be entitled to half of the shares of the royalties of Lincallo in his contracts
with Gold Star, Marinduque Iron Mines and Alejandro Marquez, that both
mining companies pay directly to the former half of the shares of the royalties
until said contracts were terminated, that Lincallo pay the heirs the capital
Victor Jimena gave him to purchase the mining claims and the latter’s shares
with interest, and that Gold Star Mining Co., Inc. pay them the sum of
P30,691.92 solidarily with Ananias Isaac Lincallo for violation of an injunction.
- The defendants appealed to the CA, which affirmed CFI Manila’s decision
- ISSUE
- 1) WON the CA erred in finding that the Jimenas have a cause of action
against Gold Star Mining Co., as there is no privity of contract between Gold
Star and Jimena.
- 2) WON the CA erred in condemning Gold Star to pay the sum of P30,691.92
for violation of an allegedly non-existent injunction.
- RULING
- 1) NO. The existence of a common subject-matter supplies the juridical link.
Jimena repeatedly made demands upon God Star for the payment of his 1⁄2
share of the royalties, but all in vain, so he was forced to implead Gold Star
for having refused to recognize his right. Furthermore, under such conditions
wherein Jimena was repeatedly denied of his interests, Jimena has an action
against Gold Star, pursuant to Art. 1883, NCC, which provides that the
principal may sue the person with whom the agent dealt with in his (agent’s)
own name, when the transaction ‘involves things belonging to the principal.’
- 2) NO. Said award is not so much a penalty against petitioner as a decree of
restitution, in order to make the violated injunction effective, as it should be,
by placing the parties in the same condition as if the injunction had been fully
obeyed. If Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., had only heeded the injunction and had
not paid to Lincallo the royalties of P30,691.92, such amount would now be
available for the satisfaction of the claims of Jimena and his heirs against
Lincallo. By sentencing Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., to pay, for the account of
Lincallo, the sum aforesaid, the court merely endeavoured to prevent its
award from being rendered pro tanto nugatory and ineffective, and thus make
it conformable to law and justice.
- The questioned award was not intended to be a penalty against appellant
Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., is shown by the provision in the judgment that the
P30,691.92 to be paid by it to Jimena is "to be imputed to Lincallo's liability
under this judgment." The court thus left the way open for Gold Star Mining
Co., Inc., to recover later the whole amount from Lincallo, whether by direct
action against him or by deducting it from the royalties that may fall due under
his 1951 contract with appellant.
- DECISION: WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision
appealed from, the same is affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant,
Gold Star Mining Co., Inc.
-