GR L 4845; (December, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4845 December 24, 1952
L. G. MARQUEZ and Z. GUTIERREZ LORA, plaintiffs. L. G. Marquez, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO VARELA and CARMEN VARELA, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff Z. Gutierrez Lora was authorized by defendants Francisco and Carmen Varela to negotiate the sale of their interest in a parcel of land. Lora met his co-plaintiff, L. G. Marquez, a real estate broker, and they agreed to work together to find a buyer. They allegedly found a ready, willing, and able buyer who accepted the defendants’ price and terms. However, the defendants thereafter refused to carry out the sale and execute the necessary deed, causing the plaintiffs to fail to receive their expected commission. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as to plaintiff Marquez on the ground that he had no cause of action against them, arguing that the authority to sell was given only to Lora, not to Marquez, and that Marquez was a stranger and unknown to the defendants. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the motion and dismissed the complaint as to Marquez, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint states a cause of action in favor of plaintiff L. G. Marquez against the defendants, thereby making his joinder as a party plaintiff proper, despite the absence of direct privity of contract between Marquez and the defendants.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal. The Court held that under the operative facts alleged in the complaint, Marquez had a primary right to be paid for his services rendered jointly with Lora and a corresponding duty devolved upon the defendants to pay for those services. The Court distinguished the Philippine system of pleading (Code Pleading) from common law procedure. Under the rules (specifically Section 6 of Rule 3), all persons in whom any right to relief arising out of the same transaction is alleged to exist may join as plaintiffs where any common question of law or fact arises. The rules do not require privity of contract between Marquez and the defendants; it is sufficient that Marquez has a material interest in the subject of the action—his right to share in the broker’s commission under Lora’s contract with the defendants. Therefore, the complaint stated a cause of action, and Marquez’s joinder as a party plaintiff was proper. The order of dismissal was reversed, with costs against the defendants.