G.R. No. L-4096 November 5, 1952
GIL EXCONDE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF PHILIPPINES, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On May 31, 1946, plaintiff Gil Exconde was appointed by defendant International Harvester Company as its exclusive dealer for International trucks and attachments in several provinces, with the appointment set to expire in one year but subject to cancellation by the defendant at any time at its discretion. Plaintiff accepted and earned commissions from 1946 to 1949. On December 6, 1948, defendant advised plaintiff that his temporary appointment as commission dealer was terminated as of December 31, 1948, and that a new commission dealer agreement would be available only if he showed satisfactory progress in establishing required facilities, such as a showroom, parts stock, and service facilities in San Pablo. In anticipation of a new appointment, plaintiff subleased land, constructed a small building, and purchased spare parts. On March 24, 1949, defendant advised plaintiff to immediately arrange for a bond, which plaintiff failed to do. On June 21, 1949, defendant informed plaintiff that his appointment expired as of June 30, 1949, due to unsatisfactory handling of his territory. Plaintiff sued to recover damages for alleged breach of promise to employ, claiming defendant was estopped from cancelling his appointment. The trial court dismissed the action, finding plaintiff failed to construct the building as required, did not spend sufficient time in his territory, did not cover his territory satisfactorily, and failed to file the required bond.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant breached a promise to employ the plaintiff as a permanent dealer, thereby entitling the plaintiff to damages.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of dismissal. The Court found no evidence of a definite promise by the defendant to extend a permanent dealership contract to the plaintiff. The original appointment was temporary and subject to cancellation. The December 6, 1948 letter explicitly terminated plaintiff’s temporary appointment and conditioned a new agreement on satisfactory progress, indicating defendant’s dissatisfaction. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with requirements—such as constructing an adequate building, spending sufficient time in his territory, and filing a bond—justified the non-renewal. The claim of estoppel was dismissed, as defendant’s letters and actions did not lead plaintiff to believe he had a permanent appointment. The Court held that for an action for breach of promise to succeed, a clear and positive promise must be shown, which plaintiff failed to establish. Plaintiff’s hopes, unsupported by a concrete promise, were not actionable.