De Castro vs Court of Appeals

Petioners: Constante Amor De Castro and Corazon

Amor De Castro
Respondent: CA and Francisco Artigo
Principal: Constante and Corazon
Agents: Artigo (broker)
Doctrine: When the law expressly provides for
solidarity of the obligation, as in the liability of coprincipals in a contract of agency, each obligor may be
compelled to pay the entire obligation. The agent may
recover the whole compensation from any one of the
co-principals, as in this case.
Facts:
Constante and Corazon were co-owners of 4 lots
located in Cubao. In a letter, Constante and Corazon
authorized Artigo to act as real estate brokers of the
sale of the properties mentioned for P23M with 5% as
commission. Artigo found Times Transit Corporation
(TTC), represented by Mr. Rondaris (president), as a
prospective buy who bought 2 lots.
Artigo felt that his commission should be P352,5000
which is 5% of P7,050,000.00 paid by TTC because he
was the one who introduced him to Constante and
facilitated the negotiation.
Constante disagrees and argues that Artigo is selfishly
asking for more than what he deserves because there
were more or less 18 others whos efforts dwarfed
Artigos efforts. Even still, Constante gave Artigo the
largest cut in the commission of (P 48,893.76). Artigo
should not have been heard to complain of getting
only he actually got the lions share of the commission
and worse, he should not have been allowed to get the
entire commission. The purchase price for the two lots

was only P3.6 million as appearing in the deed of sale

and not P7.05 million as alleged by Artigo.
Artigo sued Constante and Corazonto collect the
unpaid balance of his broker's commission from the De
Castros. The Trial Court finds defendants Constante
and Corazon Amor de Castro jointly and solidarily
liable. CA Affirmed in toto.
Issue: WON the complaint merits dismissal for failure
to implead other co-owners as indispensable parties
(NO)
Held: The De Castross argue that ARtigos complaint
should be dismissed for failure to implead all the coowners of the 2 lots. The De Castros claim that Artigo
knew that the 2 lots were co-owned by Constante,
Corazon and their other siblings. They contend the
failure to implead such indispensable parties is fatal to
the complaint of Artigo, as agent of all co-owners,
would be paid with funds of the co-owners.
The rule on mandatory joinder of indispensable parties
is not applicable to the instant case.
There is no dispute that Constante appointed Artigo
in a handwritten note to sell the properties of the De
Castros for P23 million at a 5 percent commission. The
authority was on a first come, first serve basis.
Constante signed the note as owner and as
representative of the other co-owners. Under this note,
a contract of agency was clearly constituted between
Constante and Artigo. De Castros cannot seek the
dismissal of the case for failure to implead the other
co-owners as indispensable parties. The De Castros
admit that the other co-owners are solidarily liable
under the contract of agency, citing Article 1915 of the
Civil Code, which reads:

Art. 1915. If two or more persons have appointed an

agent for a common transaction or undertaking, they
shall be solidarily liable to the agent for all the
consequences of the agency.
The rule in this article applies even when the
appointments were made by the principals in separate
acts, provided that they are for the same
transaction. The solidarity arises from the common
interest of the principals, and not from the act of
constituting the agency. By virtue of this solidarity, the

agent can recover from any principal the whole

compensation and indemnity owing to him by the
others. The parties, however, may, by express
agreement, negate this solidary responsibility. The
solidarity does not disappear by the mere partition
effected by the principals after the accomplishment of
the agency.