GR L 67889; (October, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-67889 October 10, 1985
Primitivo Siasat and Marcelino Siasat, petitioners, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Teresita Nacianceno, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Primitivo Siasat, owner of United Flag Industry, executed a document appointing respondent Teresita Nacianceno as his representative “to deal with any entity or organization, private or government in connection with the marketing of our products” for a 30% commission. Nacianceno had facilitated a direct purchase of Philippine flags by the Department of Education and Culture. After the first delivery of flags, Siasat revoked the agency and tendered only a 5% commission for that delivery, which Nacianceno accepted under protest based on an assurance of full payment after the second delivery. Upon learning Siasat had received payment for the second delivery but refused to pay her commission, Nacianceno filed an action to recover her 30% commission on both deliveries, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The trial court and the Intermediate Appellate Court ruled in her favor.
ISSUE
The primary issues were whether Nacianceno was entitled to a 30% commission on the second delivery of flags despite the revocation of her agency, and whether the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees were proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the appellate court’s decision. It upheld the award of commission for the second delivery. The Court ruled that the agency was a general one, as the written authority empowered Nacianceno to deal with any government entity for marketing the principal’s products. The transaction with the Department of Education was clearly within this scope. The revocation of the agency did not negate the right to the commission because the sale of the second batch of flags was the direct result and continuation of the single transaction Nacianceno had procured. The essence of the procurement was her prior facilitation, making the subsequent delivery a fruition of her efforts for which she was entitled to compensation.
However, the Court deleted the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees. It found no conclusive evidence of bad faith on the part of the petitioners, as their defense, though ultimately unmeritorious, was a legitimate attempt to litigate their sincere belief that the revocation excused them from further commission. The respondent also did not come to court with “completely clean hands.” The Court strongly criticized the procurement process, noting the scandalous waste of public funds in paying a 30% commission to a mere facilitator and directed a copy of the decision to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action. The petitioners were ordered to pay the balance of the commission for the second delivery only.