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.