I.

Ratio Decidendi

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 the basis for the petitioner to escape payment of the commission
agreed upon.

II. Facts

Infante was the owner of the land together with a house built thereon situated in
Manila. It was agreed that Cunanan and Mijares would sell the property and earn a
commission. Infante told Cunanan and Mijares about her decision to no longer sell
the lot and had them sign a statement declaring that their authority to sell had
already been revoked before Noche agreed to buy the lot. Subsequently, Infante
sold the lot & house to Noche. Defendants herein demanded for their commission.

III. Issue

Whether or not the petitioner was duty-bound to pay the commission to the
respondents.

IV. Ruling
Yes.
A principal may withdraw the authority given to an agent at will. But respondents
agreed to cancel the authority given to them upon assurance by the petitioner that
should the property be sold to Noche, they would be given a commission.
That petitioner had changed her mind even if the respondents had found a buyer
who was willing to close the deal, is a matter that would give rise to a legal
consequence if the respondents agree to call off to transaction in deference to the
request of the petitioner. 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.