Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

INLAND REALTY INVESTMENT SERVICE, INC v.

 CA

[G.R. No. 76969. June 9, 1997]

Facts: On Sept. 16, 1975, Gregorio Araneta, Inc. granted Inland Realty Investment
Service (Petitioners), Inc. a 30-day authority to sell its 9,800 shares of stock in
Architect’s Bldg., Inc. at the price of P1,500/share. Petitioners sent proposal letters to its
prospective buyers, one of which was Stanford Microsystems, Inc. Stanford offered to
buy the shares at P1,000/share. Petitioners sent a letter to Gregorio Araneta Inc. to
register Stanford as one of its prospective buyers. Gregorio Araneta Inc. replied that the
price offered by Stanford was too low and suggested if petitioners may make it better.
Petitioner’s authority to sell was extended several times: 1) Oct. 2, 1975 for 30 days 2)
October 28, 1975 for 30 days and 3) Dec. 2, 1975 for 30 days. On July 8, 1977, the
shares were finally sold to Stanford. Petitioners then demanded payment of their 5%
broker’s commission from the proceeds of P13.5M or P675,000. Gregorio Araneta
Inc.declined to pay. Petitioners filed a claim for unpaid agent’s commission for brokering
the sales transaction.
The Trial Court dismissed Petitioner’s complaint holding that after the authority to sell
expired 30 days from Dec. 2, 1975 or on Jan. 1, 1976, PETITIONERS abandoned the
sales transaction and were no longer privy to the consummation and documentation
thereof. PETITIONERS appealed. CA dismissed appeal holding that there was no
longer any agency after the last extension (Dec. 2). Petitioner’s agency contract and
authority to sell expired on Jan. 1, 1976 while the consummation of the sale to Stanford
occurred more than 1 year and 5 months after the said expiration (July 8, 1977).

ISSUE:
WON Inland Realty Investment Service was instrumental in the final consummation of
the sale to Stanford which was the same company name submitted to GREGORIO
ARANETA INC.as prospective buyer
WON Inland Realty Investment Service is entitled to broker’s commission
HELD:
Where a party is not the efficient procuring cause in bringing about a sale, he is not
entitled to the stipulated broker’s commission.
From Sept. 16, 1975 to Jan. 1, 1976, when petitioner’s authority to sell was subsisting, if
at all, Petitioner had nothing to show that they actively served their principal’s interests,
pursued to sell the shares in accordance with the terms and conditions, and performed
substantial acts that proximately and causatively led to the consummation of the sale to
Stanford of Araneta, Inc.’s shares in Architect’s.
Instant petition is HEREBY DISMISSED.

Вам также может понравиться