Domingo v.

Domingo
G.R. No. L-30573 October 29, 1971

FACTS:
- Vicente granted Gregorio the exclusive agency to sell his lot with a commission of 5% on the
total price
- Teo la Purisima, an intervenor, was authorzed by Gregorio to look for a buyer, promising him
one-half of the 5% commission. Oscar De Leon was then introduced to Gregorio by Teo la
as a prospective buyer.
- A written o er which was a very much lower price was submitted by Oscar. Vicente then
directed Gregorio to tell Oscar to raise his o er. After several meetings, between Gregorio
and Oscar, the latter eventually raised his o er.
- Pursuant to his promise to Gregorio, Oscar gave him as a gift or propina the sum of 1,000.00
for succeeding in persuading Vicente to sell his lot at P1.20 per square meter or a total in
round gure of P109,000.00. This gift of P1,000.00 was not disclosed by Gregorio to Vicente.
Neither did Oscar pay Vicente the additional amount of P1,000.00 by way of earnest money.
- When the deed of sale was not executed, Oscar told Gregorio that he did not receive his
money from his brother in the US for which reason he was giving up the negotiation
including earnest money to Vicente and the propina or gift given to Gregorio
- Gregorio sensed that something is o when Oscar did not see the former after several
weeks. Gregorio then went to Vicente and read a portion to the e ect that Vicente was still
committed to pay him 5% commission.
- Gregorio discovered that a deed of sale was executed by Amparo Diaz when he preceeded
to the o ce of the Register of Deeds in Quezon City
- Upon learning that Vicente sold his property to Oscar, he demanded in writing the payment
of his commission. Vicente, on the other hand stated that Gregorio is not entitled to the 5%
commission because he sold the property not to Gregorio’s buyer, Oscar but to the wife of
Oscar, Amparo

ISSUE:
- WON Gregorio’s act of accepting the gift or propina from Oscar constitutes a fraud which
would cause the forfeiture of his 5% commission

RULING:
- YES. Gregorio Domingo as the broker, received a gift or propina from the prospective buyer
Oscar de Leon, without the knowledge and consent of his principal, Vicente Domingo. His
acceptance of said substantial monetary gift corrupted his duty to serve the interests only of
his principal and undermined his loyalty to his principal, who gave him partial advance of
P3000 on his commission.
- The Supreme Court held that the law imposes upon the agent the absolute obligation to
make a full disclosure or complete account to his principal of all his transactions and other
material facts relevant to the agency
- Hence, by taking such pro t or bonus or gift or propina from the vendee, the agent thereby
assumes a position wholly inconsistent with that of being an agent for his principal, who has
a right to treat him, insofar as his Commission is concerned, as if no agency had existed.
The fact that the principal may have been bene ted by the valuable services of the said
agent does not exculpate the agent who has only himself to blame for such a result by
reason of his treachery or per dy.
- An agent who takes a secret pro t in the nature of a bonus, gratuity or personal bene t from
the vendee, without revealing the same to his principal, the vendor, is guilty of a breach of
his loyalty to the principal and forfeits his right to collect the commission from his principal,
even if the principal does not su er any injury.
fi
fi
ffi
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi