G.R. No. 66541, 20 November 1990

FACTS:

A claim for alleged unpaid commissions of an agent is what is basically involved in the action at bar

1) Marcelina A. Escandor — engaged, under the name and style of Guardex Enterprises, in (a) the manufacture and sale of fire-fighting equipment such as fire extinguishers, fire hose cabinets and related products, and (b) occasionally, the building or fabrication of fire trucks; and
2) Jumbee Orbeta — a “freelance” salesman.

It appears that Orbeta somehow learned that Escandor had offered to fabricate a fire truck for Rubberworld (Phil.) Inc. He wrote to Escandor inquiring about the amount of commission for the sale of a fire truck. Escandor wrote back on the same day to advise that it was P15,000.00 per unit. Four days later, Orbeta offered to look after (follow-up) Escandor’s pending proposal to sell a fire truck to Rubberworld, and asked for P250.00 as representation expenses. Escandor agreed and gave him the money.

When no word was received by Escandor from Orbeta after three days, she herself inquired in writing from Rubberworld about her offer of sale of a fire truck. Having apparently received an encouraging response, Escandor sent Rubberword a revised price quotation some ten days later.

In the meantime, Orbeta sold to other individuals some of Escandor’s fire extinguishers, receiving traveling expenses in connection therewith as well as the corresponding commissions. He then dropped out of sight.

About seven months afterwards, Escandor herself finally concluded a contract with Rubberworld for the latter’s purchase of a fire truck. The transaction was consummated with the delivery of the truck and full payment thereof by Rubberworld.

At this point, Orbeta suddenly reappeared and asked for his commission for the sale of the fire truck to Rubberworld. Escandor refused, saying that he had had nothing to do with the offer, negotiation and consummation of the sale.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Orbeta is entitled to commission as regards the sale of a fire truck to Rubberworld.

RULING:

No. He is not entitled to commission.

Even a finding that under these circumstances, an agency had indeed been constituted will not save the day for Orbeta, because nothing in the record tends to prove that he succeeded in carrying out its terms or even as much as attempted to do so. The evidence in fact clearly indicates otherwise. The terms of Escandor’s letter of August 14, 1978 — assuming that it was indeed an “authority to sell,” as Orbeta insists — are to the effect that entitlement to the P15,000 commission is contingent on the purchase by a customer of a fire truck, the implicit condition being that the agent would earn the commission if he was instrumental in bringing the sale about. Orbeta certainly had nothing to do with the sale of the fire truck, and is not therefore entitled to any commission at all.

*Case digest by Catherine C. Velasco, LLB-IV, Andres Bonifacio College, SY 2019 – 2020