MEDRANO VS CA

[G.R. No. 150678. February 18, 2005]

BIENVENIDO
R.
MEDRANO
and
IBAAN
RURAL
BANK, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PACITA G.
BORBON, JOSEFINA E. ANTONIO and ESTELA A.
FLOR, respondents.

FACTS:

Bienvenido Medrano was the Vice-Chairman of Ibaan Rural Bank

In 1986, Medrano asked Mrs. Estela Flor to look for a buyer of a
foreclosed asset of the bank
-a 17-hectare mango plantation in Batangas
Mr. Dominador Lee, a businessman, was a client of Mrs. Pacita G.
Borbon, a licensed real estate broker.
-Lee told Borbon that he wanted to buy land with mango trees.
Borbon relayed to her business associates and friends that she
had a ready buyer for a mango orchard.
-Flor: sakto!!! I know someone who wants to sell a mango
plantation! (Medrano)
Borbon told Flor to confer with Medrano and to give them a
written authority to negotiate the sale of the property.
-Medrano issued the Letter of Authority. 5% commission to both
Borbon and Flor out of the total purchase price.
When they organized visits to the property, di natutuloy.
-bad weather, no car (on 2 separate occasions)
Then one time Lee was in Batangas so he decided to check out
the property for himself. (without Flor and Borbon)
Lee bought the property for P 1.2M.
-Flor and Borbon now asked Medrano for their 5% commission.
Medrano refused because he felt like Flor and Borbon did not do
anything. They did not even meet with Lee in the mango land.
Flor and Borbon filed a case against Medrano for the recovery of
their 5% commission.
-after the case was submitted for decision, Medrano died (no big
deal in this case. Mej irrelevant)
-trial court rendered a Decision in favor of Flor and Borbon.
Petitioner Ibaan Rural Bank and heirs of Medrano filed an appeal
which was denied.
-Motion for Reconsideration also denied.

Hence, this Petition for review of the Decision of the Court of

Appeals affirming the Decision of the RTC Makati which awarded
to Flor and Borbon their 5% brokers commission.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Flor and Borbon were the procuring cause of the
sale which entitles them to the 5% commission

HELD/RATIO:

YES. Flor and Borbon were the efficient procuring cause of the
sale because without them, Lee (buyer) would not have known
about the mango plantation being sold by Medrano (seller).
Procuring cause, in describing a brokers activity, refers to a
cause originating a series of events which, without break in their
continuity, result in the accomplishment of the prime objective of
the employment of the broker producing a purchaser ready,
willing and able to buy on the owners terms. To be regarded as
the procuring cause of a sale as to be entitled to a commission,
a brokers efforts must have been the foundation on which the
negotiations resulting in a sale began.
Indeed, the evidence on record shows that the respondents (Flor
and Borbon) were instrumental in the sale of the property to Lee.
-without their intervention, no sale could have been
consummated.
-upon being informed by Flor that Medrano was selling his mango
orchard, Borbon lost no time in informing Lee that they had
found a property according to his specifications.
Petition DENIED. Medrano (his heirs) should pay Flor and Borbon
their 5% commission