G.R. No. 106929 September 21, 1993
ANITA CAOILE and ERLINDA GATCHALIAN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SOLEDAD F. DE JESUS, respondents.

FACTS

Sometime in January 1986, private respondent Soledad de Jesus expressed her desire to buy a residential lot. Erlinda Domingo, upon learning this, contacted her “kumadre,” petitioner Erlinda Gatchalian, who knew of a lot for sale in Sterling Life Homes Subdivision. De Jesus, accompanied by Domingo and Gatchalian, inspected Lot No. 5, Block 8 and decided to buy it. They went to the office of Sterling Life Assurance Corporation, where de Jesus was introduced to petitioner Anita Caoile, the corporation’s Chief Accountant and Assistant Vice-President. Caoile assured de Jesus the lot was for sale, provided a photocopy of the title, and required a deposit. De Jesus paid a total of P120,000.00 in installments to Caoile: P10,000.00 on February 3, 1986; P61,000.00 on February 5, 1986 (for which a receipt was signed by Caoile as “agent” and Gatchalian also as “agent”); P39,000.00 on March 18, 1986; and the final P10,000.00 on March 21, 1986. After full payment, de Jesus demanded the Deed of Sale and Title but discovered Caoile was not authorized to sell the lot, as it had already been sold to another person, and that Caoile had resigned due to anomalies. De Jesus filed a complaint for sum of money against Caoile, Domingo, Gatchalian, and Sterling Life Assurance Corporation. The trial court rendered judgment solely against Anita Caoile, ordering her to pay P120,000.00 plus interest and attorney’s fees, and dismissed the complaint against Domingo, Gatchalian, and the corporation. The Court of Appeals modified this decision, holding Erlinda Gatchalian jointly and severally liable with Anita Caoile for the P61,000.00 covered by the receipt she co-signed.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Erlinda Gatchalian is solidarily liable with Anita Caoile for the amount of P61,000.00 based solely on her having signed the receipt for that amount as “agent.”

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court’s decision absolving Erlinda Gatchalian from liability. The Court found no valid basis to hold Gatchalian solidarily liable. The trial court’s findings established that Gatchalian, a third grader, was merely asked by Caoile to sign the P61,000.00 receipt as a witness. There was no evidence that Gatchalian actually received the money or any commission from the transaction. The fact that de Jesus did not include Gatchalian in the estafa case against Caoile and did not demand reimbursement from her before filing the civil case indicated Gatchalian never received any money. Crucially, Anita Caoile later executed a sworn consolidated receipt for the full P120,000.00, which included the P61,000.00, thereby admitting she alone received the total purchase price. No conspiracy among Caoile, Domingo, and Gatchalian was proven. The Court of Appeals’ ruling was unsupported by evidence and misapprehended material facts.