AgencyDPFebruary32014

Neither does it appear that petitioner was verbally

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ective buyer Oscar de Leon, without the knowledge and consent of his principal, herein petitioner­appellant 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 Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) on his commission. As a consequence, instead of exerting his best to persuade his prospective buyer to purchase the property on the most advantageous terms desired by his principal, the broker, herein defendant­appellee Gregorio Domingo, succeeded in persuading his principal to accept the counter­offer of the prospective buyer to purchase the property at P1.20/ sqm for the lot of 88,477 square meters, which is very much lower the the price of P2.00/sqm for said lot originally offered by his principal. The duty embodied in Article 1891 of the New Civil Code will not apply if the agent or broker acted only as a middleman with the task of merely bringing together the vendor and vendee, who themselves thereafter will negotiate on the terms and conditions of the transaction. Neither would the rule apply if the agent or broker had informed the principal of the gift or bonus or profit he received from the purchaser and his principal did not object therto. Herein defendant­appellee Gregorio Domingo was not merely a middleman of the petitioner­appellant Vicente Domingo and the buyer Oscar de Leon. He was the broker and agent of said petitioner­appellant only. And therein petitioner­appellant was not aware of the gift of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) received by Gregorio Domingo from the prospective buyer; much less did he consent to his agent's accepting such a gift. 23 SC Ruling: CA’s Judgment was reversed. Art. 1892 – When Agent May Appoint a Substitute Serona v. CA, 392 SCRA 35 (2002) VELASCO FACTS Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces of jewelry to petitioner Virgie Serona to be sold on commission basis. By oral agreement of the parties, petitioner shall remi...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online