Lim vs People (Civil Law)

LOURDES VALERIO LIM

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. L-34338 November 21, 1984

RELOVA, J.:

FACTS:

On January 10, 1966, the Lim went to the house of Maria Ayroso and proposed to sell Ayroso's tobacco. Ayroso agreed to the proposition of the appellant to sell her tobacco consisting of 615 kilos at P1.30 a kilo. The appellant was to receive the overprice for which she could sell the tobacco. This agreement was made in the presence of Ayrosos sister, Salud G. Bantug. Salvador Bantug drew the document, Exh. A, dated January 10, 1966, which reads:

To Whom It May Concern:

This is to certify that I have received from Mrs. Maria de Guzman Vda. de Ayroso. of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, six hundred fifteen kilos of leaf tobacco to be sold at Pl.30 per kilo. The proceed in the amount of Seven Hundred Ninety Nine Pesos and 50/100 (P 799.50) will be given to her as soon as it was sold.

This was signed by the appellant and witnessed by Salud, and the latter's maid, Genoveva Ruiz. The appellant at that time was bringing a jeep, and the tobacco was loaded in the jeep and brought by the appellant. Of the total value of P799.50, the appellant had paid to Ayroso only P240.00, and this was paid on three different times. Demands for the payment of the balance of the value of the tobacco were made by Ayroso, and particularly by her sister, Salud. Salud Bantug further testified that she had gone to the house of the appellant several times, but the appellant often eluded her; and that the "camarin" of the appellant was empty. Although the Lim denied that demands for payment were made upon her, it is a fact that on October 19, 1966, she wrote a letter to Salud (wherein Lim explained that she was having difficulties in demanding payments of the tobacco at the Cabanutuan market, and that it would shame her if she would only return a modest sum to Ayroso. However, if Salud indeed needed money, she would immediately send some to her.)

Pursuant to this letter, the Lim sent a money order for P100.00 on October 24, 1967, Exh. 4, and another for P50.00 on March 8, 1967; and she paid P90.00 on April 18, 1967 as evidenced by the receipt Exh. 2, dated April 18, 1967, or a total of P240.00. As no further amount was paid, the complainant filed a complaint against the appellant for estafa.

The trial court found Lim guilty of estafa. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision but modified the penalty imposed. Hence, Lim filed the instant petition for review by certiorari.

ISSUES:

WON the CA was correct in holding that the foregoing document (Exhibit "A") "fixed a period" and "the obligation was therefore, immediately demandable as soon as the tobacco was sold" (Decision, p. 6) as against the theory of the petitioner that the obligation does not fix a period, but from its nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended in which case the only action that can be maintained is a petition to ask the court to fix the duration thereof;

WON the CA was correct in holding that "Art. 1197 of the New Civil Code does not apply" as against the alternative theory of the petitioner that the fore. going receipt (Exhibit "A") gives rise to an obligation wherein the duration of the period depends upon the will of the debtor in which case the only action that can be maintained is a petition to ask the court to fix the duration of the period; and

WON the CA was correct in holding that the foregoing receipt is a contract of agency to sell as against the theory of the petitioner that it is a contract of sale.

HELD:

1) Exhibit A does not fix a period.

2) Art. 1197 does not apply

3) Yes, it is contract of agency.

It is clear in the agreement, Exhibit "A", that the proceeds of the sale of the tobacco should be turned over to the complainant as soon as the same was sold, or, that the obligation was immediately demandable as soon as the tobacco was disposed of. Hence, Article 1197 of the New Civil Code, which provides that the courts may fix the duration of the obligation if it does not fix a period, does not apply.

As to the contract of agency, the SC cited the CA’s resolution of the matter:

... Aside from the fact that Maria Ayroso testified that the appellant asked her to be her agent in selling Ayroso's tobacco, the appellant herself admitted that there was an agreement that upon the sale of the tobacco she would be given something. The appellant is a businesswoman, and it is unbelievable that she would go to the extent of going to Ayroso's house and take the tobacco with a jeep which she had brought if she did not intend to make a profit out of the transaction. Certainly, if she was doing a favor to Maria Ayroso and it was Ayroso who had requested her to sell her tobacco, it would not have been the appellant who would have gone to the house of Ayroso, but it would have been Ayroso who would have gone to the house of the appellant and deliver the tobacco to the appellant. (p. 19, Rollo)

The fact that appellant received the tobacco to be sold at P1.30 per kilo and the proceeds to be given to complainant as soon as it was sold, strongly negates transfer of ownership of the goods to the petitioner. The agreement (Exhibit "A') constituted her as an agent with the obligation to return the tobacco if the same was not sold.