CONSEJO INFANTE v JOSE CUNANAN, Juan Mijares
and the CA
31 Aug 1953 | Bautista-Angelo, J. | Topic: Obligations
and liabilities of principals to agents
FACTS:
Infante was the owner of two parcels of land,
together with a house built thereon, situated in
Manila.
Infante contracted the services of Cunana and Mjiares
to sell the above-mentioned property for Php30,000
subject to the condition that the purchaser would
assume the mortgage existing thereon in favor of the
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation.
 Infante agreed to pay them a commission
of 5% on the purchaser price plus
whatever overprice they may obtain for
the property.
Cunanan and Mijares found one Pio Noche who was
willing to buy the property under such terms.
 When Noche was introduced to Infante,
she informed them that she was no longer
interested in selling the property.
 She made them sign a document stating
that the written authority she gave them
was already cancelled.
A few weeks later, Infante dealt directly with Noche,
selling him the property for Php31,000.
 Cunanan and Mijares demanded the
payment of their commission but Infante
refused.
Infante admitted having contracted the service of
Cunanan and Mijares to sell her property but stated
that she agreed to pay a commission of Php1,200
only on condition that they buy her a property along
Taft Avenue. While Cunanan and Mijares took steps
to selling her property as agreed upon, they sold the
property at Taft Avenue to another party which
prompted her to cancel the authority she gave them.
Lower court ruled in favor of Cunanan and Mijares
and ordered Infante to pay. CA affirmed in toto.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner has obligation to pay
respondents - YES
Respondents were authorized by petitioner to sell
her property with the understanding that they will be
given a commission plus whatever overprice they
may obtain. Infante avers that the authority has
already been withdrawn when, by voluntary act of
respondents, they executed a document stating that
the authority shall be considered cancelled.
Under the old Civil Code, Infante’s right to withdraw
such authority is recognized. A principa may
withdraw the authority given to an agent at will.
However, respondents claim that although they
agreed to cancel the written authority, they did so
upon the verbal assurance that should the property
be sold to Noche, they would be given the
commission agreed upon.
There is enough justification to conclude that
respondents are entitled to the commission originally
agreed upon. That petitioner had changed her mind
even if respondent had found a buyer who was
willing to close the deal, is a matter that would not
give rise to a legal consequence if respondents agree
to call off the transactions. However, petitioner took
advantage of the services rendered by petitioner.
Believing that she could evade payment of their
commission, she induced them to sign the deed of
cancellation. This cannot be sanctioned and cannot
serve as basis for petitioner to escape payment of the
commission agreed upon.
Decision appealed from is affirmed.