People lessee, depositary or borrower, and wherein the latter is
obligated to return the same thing. Facts: Petitioner Pablito Murao is the sole owner of Lorna Murao Industrial Commercial Enterprises (LMICE), a company Contract of agency, not bailment engaged in the business of selling and refilling fire In contrast, the current Petition concerns an agency contract extinguishers, Petitioner Nelio Huertazuela is the Branch whereby the principal already received payment from the client Manager of LMICE in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. but refused to give the sales agent, who negotiated the sale, his commission. As has been established by this Court in the On 01 September 1994, petitioner Murao and private foregoing paragraphs, LMICE had a right to the full amount complainant Chito Federico entered into a Dealership paid by the City Government of Puerto Princesa. Agreement for the marketing, distribution, and refilling of fire extinguishers within Puerto Princesa City. According to the Since LMICE, through petitioners, directly collected the Dealership Agreement, private complainant Federico, as a payment, then it was already in possession of the amount, and dealer for LMICE, could obtain fire extinguishers from LMICE no transfer of juridical possession thereof was involved herein. at a 50% discount, provided that he sets up his own sales Given that private complainant Federico could not claim force, acquires and issues his own sales invoice, and posts a ownership over the said payment or any portion thereof, bond with LMICE as security for the credit line extended to him LMICE had nothing at all to deliver and return to him. The by LMICE. obligation of LMICE to pay private complainant Federico his commission does not arise from any duty to deliver or return Failing to comply with the conditions under the said Dealership the money to its supposed owner, but rather from the duty of a Agreement, private complainant Federico, nonetheless, was principal to give just compensation to its agent for the services still allowed to act as a part-time sales agent for LMICE entitled rendered by the latter. to a percentage commission from the sales of fire extinguishers.
Private complainant Federico, on behalf of LMICE,
subsequently facilitated a transaction with the City Government of Puerto Princesa for the refill of 202 fire extinguishers. On 16 June 1994, the City Government of Puerto Princesa issued Check No. to LMICE to pay for Purchase Order in the amount of ₱300,572.73, net of the 3% withholding tax. Within the same day, petitioner Huertazuela claimed the Check from the City Government of Puerto Princesa and deposited it under the current account of LMICE with PCIBank.
On 17 June 1994, private complainant Federico went to see
petitioner Huertazuela at the LMICE branch office in Puerto Princesa City to demand for the amount of ₱154,500.00 as his commission from the payment of Purchase Order by the City Government of Puerto Princesa. Petitioner Huertazuela, however, refused to pay private complainant Federico his commission since the two of them could not agree on the proper amount thereof.
Issue: Whether there is a contract of bailment in this case.
[NO]
Ruling: Payments made by clients for the fire extinguishers
pertained to LMICE. When petitioner Huertazuela, personally picked up Check No. 611437 from the City Government of Puerto Princesa, and deposited the same under the Current Account of LMICE with PCIBank, he was merely collecting what rightfully belonged to LMICE. Indeed, the Check named LMICE as the lone payee. Private complainant Federico may claim commission, allegedly equivalent to 50% of the payment received by LMICE from the City Government of Puerto Princesa, based on his right to just compensation under his agency contract with LMICE, but not as the automatic owner of the 50% portion of the said payment.
Although a contract of lease may not be fiduciary in character,
the lessee clearly had the civil obligation to return the truck to the lessor at the end of the lease period; and failure of the lessee to return the truck as provided for in the contract may constitute estafa. The phrase or any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same refers to contracts of bailment, such as, contract of lease of personal property, contract of deposit, and commodatum, wherein juridical possession of the thing was transferred to the