55. INFANTE vs CUNANAN ET AL.

Topic: Modes of Extinguishment of Agency

Nature: Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals

Facts:
Consejo Infante owned two parcels of land with a house built there. She asked the respondents Cunanan
and Mijares to sell these properties on the condition that the buyer would assume the existing mortgage
on these properties. She would give them a 5% commission plus the overprice they might obtain from
the sale. Noche agreed to purchase the properties on these conditions. After knowing this, Infante
revoked the agency and stated she was no longer interested in selling her properties. She then asked
Cunanan and Mijares to sign a written document revoking the authority she gave them. Later on, she
directly sold the properties to Noche. Upon learning this, Cunanan and Mijares filed an action to recover
the sum for their commission.
Infante admitted she contracted their services but stated that she revoked them because they did not
follow through with her instructions. When she asked them to sell her properties, she also asked them to
buy her a new one along Taft Avenue. Instead, they sold the property on Taft Avenue to another person.
The RTC ruled in favor of the agents and the CA affirmed it in toto.

Issue:
WON the herein petitioner should pay the respondents the commission agreed in the agency though it
was already revoked prior to the sale made

Held:
YES

Rationale:
That the petitioner had changed her mind even if the respondents had found her a buyer who was
willing to close the deal, is a matter that would not give rise to a legal consequence if the respondents
agree to call off the transaction in deference to the request of the petitioner. But the situation varies if
one of the parties takes advantage of the benevolence of the other and acts in a manner that would
promote his own selfish interest. This act is unfair as would amount to bad faith. This act cannot be
sanctioned without according to the party prejudiced the reward which is due him. This is the situation
in which the respondents were placed by the petitioner. Petitioner took advantage of the services
rendered by the 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 commission agreed upon.