Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

G.R. No. 148167, 16 April 2008

FACTS:

Petitioner Philex Mining Corp. entered into an agreement with Baguio Gold Mining Co. for the former to manage and operate the latter’s mining claim, known as the Sto. Nino Mine. The parties’ agreement was denominated as “Power of Attorney” and providing the following terms:

Within three (3) years from date thereof, the PRINCIPAL (Baguio Gold) shall make available to the MANAGERS (Philex Mining) up to ELEVEN MILLION PESOS (P11,000,000.00), in such amounts as from time to time may be required by the MANAGERS for use in the MANAGEMENT of the STO. NINO MINE. The said amount shall be deemed, for internal audit purposes, as the owner’s account in the Sto. Nino PROJECT. Any part of any income of the PRINCIPAL from the STO. NINO MINE, which is left with the Sto. Nino PROJECT, shall be added to such owner’s account.

Whenever the MANAGERS shall deem it necessary and convenient in connection with the MANAGEMENT of the STO. NINO MINE, they may transfer their own funds or property to the Sto. Nino PROJECT.

xxxx

(c) The cash and property shall not thereafter be withdrawn from the Sto. Nino PROJECT until termination of this Agency.

x xxx

The PRINCIPAL has current pecuniary obligation in favor of the MANAGERS and, in the future, may incur other obligations in favor of the MANAGERS. This Power of Attorney has been executed as security for the payment and satisfaction of all such obligations of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the MANAGERS and as a means to fulfill the same. Therefore, this Agency shall be irrevocable while any obligation of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the MANAGERS is outstanding, inclusive of the MANAGERS’ account. After all obligations of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the MANAGERS have been paid and satisfied in full, this Agency shall be revocable by the PRINCIPAL upon 36-month notice to the MANAGERS.

Notwithstanding any agreement or understanding between the PRINCIPAL and the MANAGERS to the contrary, the MANAGERS may withdraw from this Agency by giving 6-month notice to the PRINCIPAL. The MANAGERS shall not in any manner be held liable to the PRINCIPAL by reason alone of such withdrawal. Paragraph 5(d) hereof shall be operative in case of the MANAGERS’ withdrawal.

ISSUE:

WON the parties entered into a contract of agency coupled with an interest which is not revocable at will.

RULING:

No. An examination of the “Power of Attorney” reveals that a partnership or joint venture was indeed intended by the parties. In an agency coupled with interest, it is the agency that cannot be revoked or withdrawn by the principal due to an interest of a third party that depends upon it, or the mutual interest of both principal and agent. In this case, the non-revocation or non-withdrawal under paragraph 5(c) applies to the advances made by petitioner who is supposedly the agent and not the principal under the contract. Thus, it cannot be inferred from the stipulation that the parties’ relation under the agreement is one of agency coupled with an interest and not a partnership.

Neither can paragraph 16 of the agreement be taken as an indication that the relationship of the parties was one of agency and not a partnership. Although the said provision states that “this Agency shall be irrevocable while any obligation of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the MANAGERS is outstanding, inclusive of the MANAGERS’ account,” it does not necessarily follow that the parties entered into an agency contract coupled with an interest that cannot be withdrawn by Baguio Gold. The essence of an agency, even one that is coupled with interest, is the agent’s ability to represent his principal and bring about business relations between the latter and third persons. The strongest indication that petitioner was a partner in the Sto. Nino Mine is the fact that it would receive 50% of the net profits as “compensation” under paragraph 12 of the agreement. The entirety of the parties’ contractual stipulations simply leads to no other conclusion than that petitioner’s “compensation” is actually its share in the income of the joint venture. Article 1769 (4) of the Civil Code explicitly provides that the “receipt by a person of a share in the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business.”

*Case digest by Stephanie C. Castillo, JD-IV, Andres Bonifacio College, SY: 2019-2020

By |2020-03-02T06:26:36+00:00February 13th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue