14. INFANTE VS.

CUNANAN 12/20/1948, there was no existing commitment with Cunana and Mijares hence had no
GR NO. L-5180
AUGUST 31, 1953
BY: Ryan
TOPIC: PRINCIPAL ANG AGENT; AGENT’S COMMISSION; CANCELLATION OF AGENT’S
AUTHORITY; EFFECT OF CANCELLATION ON COMMISSION
PETITIONERS: CONSEJO INFANTE
RESPONDENTS: JOSE CUNANAN, JUAN MIJARES and CA
PONENTE: BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.
SUMMARY: Infante contracted Cunanan and Mijares to sell her property for 5%
commission. They found Pio Noche however Infante backed-out of the deal and revoked
her authority over them. Afterwards, she met with Pio and sold the property to Pio Noche.
Cunanan got wind of the deal and demanded their commission but was refused. She made
them sign a document which cancelled her authority. SC held that they are entitled to the
commission as Infante acted in bad faith. Cunanan did his job in finding a buyer and should
be paid his commission.
DOCTRINE: If the purpose of the principal in dealing directly with the purchaser and himself
effecting the sale of the principal’s property is to avoid payment of his agent’s commission,
the implied revocation is deemed made in bad faith and cannot be sanctioned without
according to the agent the commission which is due him.
FACTS:
 On 11/30/1948, Infante contracted Cunanan’s and Mijares’ services to sell 2 parcels of
land with a house built thereon for PhP30k subject to the condition that the purchaser
would assume the mortgage that existed thereon in favor of Rehabilitation Finance
Corp. (RFC for brevity).
 Infante agreed to pay them a 5% commission on the purchase price plus whatever
overprice they may obtain for the property.
 Cunanan and Mijares found Pio Noche, who was willing to buy the property under said
conditions, but upon meeting with Infante, Infante said she was no longer interested in
selling said property and succeeded in making them (Cunanan and Mjiares) to sign a
document that terminated the authority Infante gave them.
 Moreover, on 12/20/1948, Infante personally met Pio Noche and sold the property at
PhP31k. Upon learning of the deal, Cunanan and Mijares demanded their commission
but Infante refused.
 Infante admitted to contracting Cunana and Mijares services but she agreed to pay them
PhP1.2k on the condition that they buy her property in Taft Ave to where she might
transfer after selling her property. While Cunanan and Mijares made moves to sell her
property, they sold the property at Taft Ave to another party and because of this failure
it was agreed that the authority be revoked.
 The lower ruled in favor of Cunanan and Mijares and ordered Infante to pay them
PhP2.5k with interest. CA affirmed in toto.
 Infante contends that she withdrew her authority on 11/30/1948 when by the voluntary
acts of Cunanan and Mijares, they executed a document that stated that said authority
was cancelled without any effect so that when Infante sold the property to Noche on
obligation to pay them.
ISSUE: WON Cunanan and Mijares are entitled to the commission
HELD/RATIO: YES.
 If the facts were as claimed by Infante, there is no doubt that she had no obligation to
pay them under her original authority since the Old Civil Code recognizes such right to
withdraw at will. (OCC Art. 1733)
 But this fact is disputed. Cunanan and Mijares claim that while they agreed to cancel the
authority given to them, they only did so upon the assurance that should the property
be sold to their own buyer, Pio Noche, they would be given the agreed commission.
 The CA found that after Mijares had bestowed her authority to Cunanan and Mijares to
sell her lot for PhP30,000, they found Pio Noche, who agreed to her terms and was
immediately brought up to Infante. But by way of strategy, she told them that she was
now disinterested in the deal and had them sign a document cancelling her authority.
 That Infante changed her mind even if Cunanan and Mijares found Noche as a buyer is a
matter that would not give rise to a legal consequence if respondents agree to call off
the transaction in deference to Infante’s request. But the situation varies if one of the
parties takes advantage of another for his/her self-interest which is tantamount to bad
faith. Said act cannot be allowed w/o according to the party prejudiced the reward
which is due him.
 Infante took advantage of Cunanan and Mijares services. She believed she could
reneged from obligation and made a ruse by inducing them to sign the cancellation of
authority.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs
against petitioner.
**Separate Opinion (JUST IN CASE)**
Labrador, J. concurring and dissenting
I concur in the result. I cannot agree, however, to the ruling made in the majority decision
that the petitioners cannot introduce evidence of the circumstances under which the
document was signed, i. e. upon promise by respondent that should the property be sold to
petitioner's buyer they would nevertheless be entitled to the commission agreed upon. Such
evidence is not excluded by the parole evidence rule, because it does not tend to alter or
vary the terms of the document. This document was merely a withdrawal of the authority
granted the petitioner to sell the property, not an agreement that they shall not be paid their
commission.
WINNER: CUNANAN AND MIJARES
LOSER: INFANTE. Has to pay their commission.