ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 141846. June 19, 2000]
MARILYN V. CHUA vs. CORAZON BAUTISTA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 19 2000.
G.R. No. 141846 (Marilyn V. Chua v. Corazon Bautista.)
Petitioner Marilyn V. Chua was in the jewelry business. For 15 years, she had had business deals with respondent Corazon Bautista. On October 24, 1991, petitioner gave respondent several pieces of jewelry for the latter to sell on commission basis. Respondent's obligation was to sell the jewelry for cash within 15 days; otherwise, she should return the same. Respondent sold the jewelry to one Dolores Camballa who signed a memorandum, dated October 25, 1991, acknowledging receipt of the same from petitioner and respondent and obligating herself to pay for the price of same on or before November 30, 1991.
After some time, respondent allegedly gave petitioner two postdated checks issued by Dolores Camballa and payable to "Cash" as payment for the jewelry. Interbank Check No. 06082704, dated November 30, 1991, was for P200,000.00, while Interbank Check No. 06082729, dated December 15, 1991, was for P379,000.00.
However, when presented for payment, the first check was dishonored. The second check was neither encashed as petitioner allegedly returned the same to respondent. As respondent failed to account for the jewelry or their price, petitioner brought an action against respondent and Dolores Camballa. Respondent, in turn, filed a cross-claim against her co-defendant who was declared in default.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 92-3135 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati City. On May 3, 1995, judgment was rendered ordering Dolores Camballa to pay petitioner P579,000.00 with interest thereon at the legal rate from October 30, 1992 until the amount was fully paid, P50,000.00 moral damages, and P25,000.00 attorney's fees. Respondent was also ordered to pay petitioner P2,500.00 for the pair of earrings which the latter took from the jewelry given to her by petitioner with interest thereon at the legal rate from October 30, 1992 until the sum was fully paid.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals insofar as respondent's liability was concerned. As the trial court's decision was affirmed, this petition was filed.
The petition has no merit and should be denied.
First. Petitioner argues that her acceptance of the two checks of Dolores Camballa did not extinguish respondent's obligation to her. She cites Art. 1236 of the Civil Code which provides:
The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.
The contention is without merit. In the first place, respondent has no obligation to pay for the jewelry as the fact is that the jewelry was sold by respondent to Camballa with the knowledge of petitioner. The obligation to pay for the price of the jewelry was therefore owed by Camballa, not respondent, to petitioner. The fact that petitioner was not able to encash the checks issued by Camballa did not make respondent liable to petitioner in default of Camballa.
Second. Petitioner, however, claims that respondent should be held liable for the price of the jewelry because, contrary to petitioner's instructions, respondent sold the jewelry on credit. Petitioner invokes Art. 1905 of the Civil Code which provides:
The commission agent cannot, without the express or implied consent of the principal, sell on credit. Should he do so, the principal may demand from him payment in cash, but the commission agent shall be entitled to any interest or benefit, which may result from such sale.
The contention is also without merit. Petitioner knew of the sale on credit to Camballa since she does not deny that she was aware of the memorandum signed by Camballa obligating herself to pay for the jewelry on or before November 30, 1991. By subsequently accepting the two postdated checks issued by Dolores Camballa, petitioner consented to the sale of the jewelry on credit. She cannot now belatedly claim that she only did so to minimize her damage.
Third. Petitioner also cites Art. 1883 of the Civil Code which provides:
If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right of action against the persons with whom the agent has contracted; neither have such persons against the principal.
In such case the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the person with whom he has contracted, as if the transaction were his own, except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
The provisions of this Article shall be understood to be without prejudice to the actions between the principal and agent.
This is not a case, however, of a transaction involving an undisclosed principal since Dolores Camballa signed a memorandum in which it was stated that she received the jewelry from petitioner and respondent.
Fourth. Anent the question of whether respondent acted negligently or fraudulently so as to render her liable to petitioner, the Court of Appeals correctly held:
Neither was fraud committed by defendant-appellee Corazon Bautista against plaintiff-appellant in the sale of the jewelries to defendant Dolores Camballa. Nor were there insidous words or machinations employed by defendant-appellee to enter into the transaction in question with defendant-appellee Dolores Camballa (Art. 1338, N.C.C.). Likewise there is no evidence in the record that defendant-appellee Corazon Bautista has made any false representations of fact with the plaintiff-appellant that should be acted upon by her and thus inducing her to act upon it (Phil. Mfg. Co. vs. Go Jocco, 48 Phil. 630). Furthermore, "f(raud) is never imputed and the courts never sustain findings of fraud upon circumstances which, at most, create only suspicion" (Yutivo Sons Hardware co. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 1 SCRA 160).
Neither was defendant-appellee Corazon Bautista negligent in the sale of the jewelries to defendant-appellee Dolores Camballa. Plaintiff-appellant knew all along that the sale to defendant-appellee Camballa was not on cash basis but on credit payable on or before 30 November 1991 [per the Memorandum of Receipt signed by Camballa]. While it is true that defendant-appellee Bautista had known defendant-appellee Camballa for only one month prior to the transaction, it is also true that the plaintiff-appellant has agreed and consented to the sale in favor of defendant-appellee Camballa. For the past fifteen years that defendant-appellee Bautista has transacted business with the plaintiff-appellant all her transactions with the latter were in order . . . which means that defendant-appellee Bautista was diligent and trustworthy in her business transactions with plaintiff-appellant through her obsevance of the proper steps or conduct in the fulfillment of her obligation, taking into consideration its nature and the circumstances of persons, time and place (Baer Senior & Co. vs. Compania Maritima, 6 Phil. 218).
This finding of fact by the Court of Appeals affirming that of the trial court is conclusive upon this Court. (First Philippines International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 259 (1996))
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.
The appearance of Ligon Solis Pizarro Santos and De Borja as counsel for petitioner, filed by Atty. Frederick M. de Borja, with request to be furnished with copies of court processes in this case at Penthouse Suite, ZETA Bldg., Salcedo St., Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City is NOTED and GRANTED, and the withdrawal of appearance of David Leabres and De Borja as counsel for petitioner, with therein conformity of petitioner, is NOTED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
