DOMINGO v.

DOMINGO
G.R. No. L-30573; October 29, 1971

FACTS:

On June 2, 1956, Vicente M. Domingo granted Gregorio Domingo, a real estate
broker, the exclusive agency to sell his lot No. 883 of Piedad Estate with an area of
about 88,477 square meters at the rate of P2.00 per square meter (or for
P176,954.00) with a commission of 5% on the total price, if the property is sold by
Vicente or by anyone else during the 30-day duration of the agency or if the
property is sold by Vicente within three months from the termination of the agency
to a purchaser to whom it was submitted by Gregorio during the continuance of the
agency with notice to Vicente. The said agency contract was in triplicate, one copy
was given to Vicente, while the original and another copy were retained by
Gregorio.

On June 3, 1956, Gregorio authorized the intervenor Teofilo P. Purisima to look for
a buyer, promising him one-half of the 5% commission.Thereafter, Teofilo
Purisima introduced Oscar de Leon to Gregorio as a prospective buyer.

Oscar de Leon submitted a written offer which was very much lower than the price
of P2.00 per square meter. Vicente directed Gregorio to tell Oscar de Leon to raise
his offer. After several conferences between Gregorio and Oscar de Leon, the latter
raised his offer to P109,000.00 on June 20 and Vicente agreed.

Upon demand of Vicente, Oscar de Leon issued to him a check in the amount of
P1,000.00 as earnest money, after which Vicente advanced to Gregorio the sum of
P300.00. Oscar de Leon confirmed his former offer to pay for the property at P1.20
per square meter in another letter. Subsequently, Vicente asked for an additional
amount of P1,000.00 as earnest money, which Oscar de Leon promised to deliver
to him.

Pursuant to his promise to Gregorio, Oscar gave him as a gift or propina the sum of
1,000.00 for succeeding in persuading Vicente to sell his lot at P1.20 per square
meter or a total in round figure of P109,000.00. This gift of P1,000.00 was not
disclosed by Gregorio to Vicente. Neither did Oscar pay Vicente the additional
amount of P1,000.00 by way of earnest money.

When the deed of sale was not executed on August 1, 1956 as stipulated nor on
August 16, 1956 as extended by Vicente, Oscar told Gregorio that he did not
receive his money from his brother in the United States, for which reason he was
giving up the negotiation including the amount of P 1,000 given as earnest money
to Vicente and the P 1,000 given to Gregorio as propina or gift.

When Oscar did not see him after several weeks, Gregorio sensed something fishy.
So, he went to Vicente and read a portion to the effect that Vicente was still
committed to pay him 5% commission. Vicente grabbed the original of the
document and tore it to pieces.

From his meeting with Vicente, Gregorio proceeded to the office of the Register of
Deeds of Quezon City, where he discovered a deed of sale executed on September
17, 1956 by Amparo Diaz.

Upon thus learning that Vicente sold his property to the same buyer, Oscar de Leon
and his wife, he demanded in writing payment of his commission on the sale price
of P109,000.00.

Vicente stated that Gregorio is not entitled to the 5% commission because he sold
the property not to Gregorio's buyer, Oscar de Leon, but to another buyer, Amparo
Diaz, wife of Oscar de Leon

ISSUE:
Whether Gregorio was entitled to receive the 5% commission

HELD:

No, Gregorio is not entitled to receive the 5% commission.

The Supreme Court held that the law imposes upon the agent the absolute
obligation to make a full disclosure or complete account to his principal of all his
transactions and other material facts relevant to the agency, so much so that the law
as amended does not countenance any stipulation exempting the agent from such an
obligation and considers such an exemption as void.

Hence, by taking such profit or bonus or gift or propina from the vendee, the agent
thereby assumes a position wholly inconsistent with that of being an agent for his
principal, who has a right to treat him, insofar as his Commission is concerned, as
if no agency had existed. The fact that the principal may have been benefited by the
valuable services of the said agent does not exculpate the agent who has only
himself to blame for such a result by reason of his treachery or perfidy.