G.R. No. 95909
UNILAND RESOURCES, petitioner, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES , respondent. [under Prats doctrine and Manotok test]
First Division PONENTE: Gancayco, PONENTE: Gancayco, J. DATE: August DATE: August 16, 1991
SHORT VERSION: FACTS: DP FACTS: DP redee!ed " #ots, t$en o%%ered t$e! %or sa#e in a pu&#ic &idding. 'ne o% t$e #ots (as &oug$t &y )$arges *ea#ty *ea#ty )orporation )orporation,, an a%%i#iate o% one o% +ni#ands +ni#ands c#ients, c#ients, G#a-o P$i#ippine P$i#ippines. s. A%ter A%ter t$e sa#e, +ni#and, asked %or t$e pay!ent o% its &rokers %ee in instru!enting t$e sa#e o% t$e #ot to )$arges *ea#ty. HELD: +ni#and (as not a&#e to secure accreditation %ro! DP to transact &usinesses on t$eir &e$a#%. An i!p#ied agency a#so did not e-ist &et(een t$e!. /o(ever, due to e0uity considerations t$ey (ere t$e ones ($o advised G#a-o on t$e avai#a&i#ity o% t$e (are$ouse #ot, co!!unicated (it$ DP on t$e o%%er2 t$ey (ere entit#ed to P133,333 co!pensation.
FACTS: Marindu0ue Mining )orporation o&tained a #oad %ro! t$e DP and as security t$ere%or, !ortgaged certain rea# properties to t$e #atter, a!ong t$e! " #ots in Makati. 1. '%%ice ui#ding 4ot 5553 s0!2 #ocated at Pasong a!o 2. 7are$ouse 4ot 1"588 s0!2 #ocated at Pasong a!o
/o(ever, t$e #ots $ave &een previous#y !ortgaged &y Marindu0ue Mining )orp. to )a#te-, and t$e !ortgage in %avor o% DP (as entered on t$eir tit#es as a second !ortgage. $e account o% t$e Marindu0ue Mining )orp., (it$ t$e DP (as #ater trans%erred to t$e Assets Privatiation rust AP2.
For %ai#ure o% t$e Marindu0ue Mining )orp. to pay its o&#igations to )a#te-, t$e #atter %orec#osed its !ortgage on t$e a%oresaid t(o #ots. AP on t$e ot$er $and, to recover its invest!ent on t$e Marindu0ue Account, o%%ered %or sa#e to t$e pu&#ic t$roug$ DP its rig$t o% rede!ption on said t(o #ots &y pu&#ic &idding.
$e a%oresaid &idding (as $e#d on May 8, 19:; (it$ on#y one &idder, t$e )ounse# *ea#ty )orp. [an a%%i#iate o% G#a-o, P$i#ippines, t$e c#ient o% petitioner], ($ic$ o%%ered a &id on#y %or t$e (are$ouse #ot in t$e a!ount o% P"5,933,333.33.
>n preparation %or t$e sa#e, DP ca##ed a pre?&idding con%erence ($erein a ne( set o% &idding guide#ines (ere %or!u#ated. $en, on Ju#y 53, t$e pu&#ic &idding %or t$e sa#e o% t$e t(o #ots (as $e#d and again, t$ere (as on#y one &idder, t$e )$arges *ea#ty )orp. [anot$er a%%i#iate o% G#a-o, P$i#ippines], %or on#y t$e (are$ouse #ot and %or t$e a!ount o% P"@,3;3,333.33, ($ic$ is s#ig$t#y $ig$er t$an t$e a!ount previous#y o%%ered &y )ounse# *ea#ty )orp. o &id (as su&!itted %or t$e o%%ice &ui#ding #ot.
ot(it$standing t$at t$ere (as no &idder %or t$e o%%ice &ui#ding #ot, DP approved t$e sa#e o% t$e (are$ouse #ot to )$arges *ea#ty )orp.
As %or t$e o%%ice &ui#ding #ot, it (as #ater so#d &y DP in a negotiated sa#e to P> as trustee %or t$e BPerpetua# )are Fund o% t$e Mani#a Me!oria# ParkB. $e DP ad!itted#y paid t$e 8C &rokers %ee on t$is sa#e to t$e DP Manage!ent )orporation, ($ic$ acted as &roker %or said negotiated sa#e.
A%ter t$e a%oresaid sa#e, +ni#and *esources, t$roug$ its President, (rote t(o #etters to DP, asking %or t$e pay!ent o% its &rokers %ee in instru!enting t$e sa#e o% DPs (are$ouse #ot to )$arges *ea#ty )orp, ($ic$ (as denied.
ISSUES AND RATIO: 1.
WON U!"#$ R%&o'()%& *#& #+"% o &%)'(% #))(%$!#!o -(o DBP. NO. +ni#and (as never a&#e to secure t$e re0uired accreditation %ro! respondent DP to transact &usiness on &e$a#% o% t$e #atter.
$e #etters sent &y +ni#and to t$e $ig$er o%%icers o% t$e DP and t$e AP are !ere#y indicative o% petitioners desire to secure suc$ accreditation.
$e !ost t$at t$ey prove is t$at t$ey (ere sent &y +ni#and and received &y respondent DP, ($ic$ c#ear#y never agreed to &e &ound t$ereto.
As dec#ared &y t$e tria# court even ($en it %ound in %avor o% +ni#and, t$ere (as no e-press rep#y %ro! t$e DP or t$e AP as to t$e accreditation soug$t &y +ni#and. Fro! t$e very &eginning, t$ere%ore, it (as a(are t$at it $ad no e-press aut$ority %ro! DP to %ind &uyers o% its properties.
2. WON # !/"!%$ #%) %!&%$. NO. Petitioner contends t$at an i!p#ied agency e-isted pursuant to Artic#e 1:69. >t argues t$at it s$ou#d $ave &een stopped, disaut$oried, and outrig$t#y prevented %ro! dea#ing t$e (are$ouse &y t$e DP %ro! t$e inceptionE. 'n t$e contrary, t$ese steps (ere never necessary. >n t$e course o% petitioners dea#ings (it$ t$e DP, it (as a#(ays !ade c#ear to petitioner t$at on#y accredited &rokers !ay #ook %or &uyers on &e$a#% o% respondent DP. $is is not a situation ($erein a t$ird party (as pre=udiced &y t$e re%usa# o% respondent DP to recognie petitioner as its &roker. $e controversy is on#y &et(een t$e DP and petitioner, to ($o! it (as e!p$asied
in no uncertain ter!s t$at t$e arrange!ent soug$t did not e-ist. Artic#e 1:69, t$ere%ore, $as no roo! %or operation in t$is case.
Petitioner (ou#d a#so disparage t$e %or!a#ity o% accreditation as !ere#y a !ec$anica# act, ($ic$ re0uires not !uc$ discretion, as #ong as a person or entity #ooks %or a &uyer [and] initiate or pro!ote t$e interests o% t$e se##er.
eing engaged in &usiness, petitioner s$ou#d do &etter to adopt t$e opposite attitude and appreciate t$at %or!a#ities, suc$ as t$e need %or accreditation, resu#t %ro! t$e evo#ution o% sound &usiness practices %or t$e protection and &ene%it o% a## parties concerned. $ey are designed and adopted speci%ica##y to prevent t$e occurrence o% situations si!i#ar to t$at o&taining in t$is case.
More i!portant#y, petitioners stance goes against t$e &asic a-io! in )ivi# 4a( t$at no one !ay contract in t$e na!e o% anot$er (it$out &eing aut$oried &y t$e #atter, un#ess t$e %or!er $as &y #a( a rig$t to represent $i!. Fro! t$is princip#e, a!ong ot$ers, springs t$e re#ations$ip o% agency ($ic$, as (it$ ot$er contracts, is one %ounded on !utua# consent t$e principa# agrees to &e &ound &y t$e acts o% t$e agent and t$e #atter in turn consents to render service on &e$a#% or in representation o% t$e principa#.
3. WON U!"#$ !& %!"%$ o )o!&&!o +#&%$ o %4'! )o&!$%(#!o&. ES.
7$i#e not active#y invo#ved in t$e actua# &idding and trans%er o% o(ners$ip o% t$e (are$ouse property, petitioner !ay &e said to $ave initiated, a#&eit (it$out proper aut$ority, t$e transaction t$at eventua##y took p#ace. $e )ourt is a#so a(are t$at respondent DP (as a&#e to rea#ie a su&stantia# pro%it %ro! t$e sa#e o% its t(o properties.
7$i#e pure#y circu!stantia#, t$ere is su%%icient reason to &e#ieve t$at t$e DP &eca!e !ore con%ident to venture and redee! t$e properties %ro! t$e AP due to t$e presence o% a ready and (i##ing &uyer, as co!!unicated and assured &y petitioner.
>n P(#& 6. Co'( o- A//%#"&, t$ere (as a %inding t$at t$e petitioner t$erein as t$e agent (as no #onger t$e e%%icient procuring cause in &ringing a&out t$e sa#e proceeding %ro! t$e %act o% e-piration o% $is e-c#usive aut$ority. $ere (as t$ere%ore no &asis in #a( to grant t$e re#ie% soug$t. evert$e#ess, t$e )ourt in e0uity granted t$e su! o% P133,333.33, out o% t$e P1,5:3,333.33 c#ai!ed as co!!ission, &y (ay o% co!pensation %or t$e e%%orts and assistance rendered &y t$e agent in t$e transaction prior to t$e e-piration o% $is aut$ority. $ese consist in o%%ering t$e #ot %or sa#e to t$e eventua# &uyer, sending %o##o(?up #etters, inviting t$e &uyer to d inner and #unc$eon !eetings, etc.
>n t$e case at &ar, it (as +ni#and ($o advised G#a-o o% t$e avai#a&i#ity o% t$e (are$ouse property and aroused its interest over t$e sa!e. $roug$ petitioner, respondent DP (as direct#y in%or!ed o% t$e e-istence o% an interested &uyer. +ni#ands persistence in co!!unicating (it$ respondent DP rein%orced t$e seriousness o% t$e o%%er. $is no dou&t $ad a &earing on t$e su&se0uent decisions !ade &y respondent DP as regards t$e disposition o% its properties.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, t$e decision appea#ed %ro! is $ere&y AFFIRMED, *!7 7% MODIFICATION t$at in e0uity respondent DP is ordered to pay petitioner t$e a!ount o% 'ne /undred $ousand Pesos P133,333.332. o pronounce!ent as to costs. N#(6#&# 8C7#!(#, C(', G(!;o
kat$#een
