Lim vs. CA (Digest)

[Case No.] : Lim vs.
Court of Appeals
GR No., Date
Ponente
FACTS: On January 26, 1989, an Information for Estafa was filed against petitioner Rosa Lim
before Branch 92 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City saying that said petitioner
defrauded Victoria Suarez. On or about October 8, 1987, petitioner Rosa Lim who had come
from Cebu received from private respondent Victoria Suarez the following two pieces of
jewelry; one (1) 3.35 carat diamond ring worth P169,000.00 and one (1) bracelet worth
P170,000.00, to be sold on commission basis. The agreement was reflected in a receipt marked
as Exhibit "A"6 for the prosecution. The transaction took place at the Sir Williams Apartelle in
Timog Avenue, Quezon City, where Rosa Lim was temporarily billeted. On December 15, 1987,
petitioner returned the bracelet to Vicky Suarez, but failed to return the diamond ring or to turn
over the proceeds thereof if sold. As a result, private complainant, aside from making verbal
demands, wrote a demand letter7 to petitioner asking for the return of said ring or the proceeds of
the sale thereof. In response, petitioner, thru counsel, wrote a letter8 to private respondent's
counsel alleging that Rosa Lim had returned both ring and bracelet to Vicky Suarez sometime in
September, 1987, for which reason, petitioner had no longer any liability to Mrs. Suarez insofar
as the pieces of jewelry were concerned. Irked, Vicky Suarez filed a complaint for estafa under
Article 315, par l(b) of the Revised Penal Code for which the petitioner herein stands convicted.
Rosa Lim admitted in court that she arrived in Manila from Cebu sometime in October 1987,
together with one Aurelia Nadera, who introduced petitioner to private respondent, and that they
were lodged at the Williams Apartelle in Timog, Quezon City. Petitioner denied that the
transaction was for her to sell the two pieces of jewelry on commission basis. She told Mrs.
Suarez that she would consider buying the pieces of jewelry far her own use and that she would
inform the private complainant of such decision before she goes back to Cebu. Thereafter, the
petitioner took the pieces of jewelry and told Mrs. Suarez to prepare the "necessary paper for me
to sign because I was not yet prepare (d) to buy it."9 After the document was prepared, petitioner
signed it. To prove that she did not agree to the terms of the receipt regarding the sale on
commission basis, petitioner insists that she signed the aforesaid document on the upper portion
thereof and not at the bottom where a space is provided for the signature of the person(s)
receiving the jewelry. 10
On October 12, 1987 before departing for Cebu, petitioner called up Mrs. Suarez by telephone in
order to inform her that she was no longer interested in the ring and bracelet. Mrs. Suarez replied
that she was busy at the time and so, she instructed the petitioner to give the pieces of jewelry to
Aurelia Nadera who would in turn give them back to the private complainant. The petitioner did
as she was told and gave the two pieces of jewelry to Nadera as evidenced by a handwritten
receipt, dated October 12, 1987. ‘
Petitioner maintains that she cannot be liable for estafa since she never received the jewelries in
trust or on commission basis from Vicky Suarez. The real agreement between her and the private
respondent was a sale on credit with Mrs. Suarez as the owner-seller and petitioner as the buyer,
as indicated by the bet that petitioner did not sign on the blank space provided for the signature
of the person receiving the jewelry but at the upper portion thereof immediately below the
description of the items taken
ISSUE(S): WON the real transaction between Rosa Lim and Vicky Suarez a contract of agency
to sell on commission basis as set out in the receipt or a sale on credit?
RULING:
YES. Rosa Lim's signature indeed appears on the upper portion of the receipt immediately below
the description of the items taken: We find that this fact does not have the effect of altering the
terms of the transaction from a contract of agency to sell on commission basis to a contract of
sale. Neither does it indicate absence or vitiation of consent thereto on the part of Rosa Lim
which would make the contract void or voidable. The moment she affixed her signature thereon,
petitioner became bound by all the terms stipulated in the receipt. She, thus, opened herself to all
the legal obligations that may arise from their breach. This is clear from Article 1356 of the New
Civil Code which provides:
“Contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into,
provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present”
However, there are some provisions of the law which require certain formalities for particular
contracts. The first is when the form is required for the validity of the contract; the second is
when it is required to make the contract effective as against third parties such as those mentioned
in Articles 1357 and 1358; and the third is when the form is required for the purpose of proving
the existence of the contract, such as those provided in the Statute of Frauds in article 1403. 13 A
contract of agency to sell on commission basis does not belong to any of these three categories,
hence it is valid and enforceable in whatever form it may be entered into. Furthermore, there is
only one type of legal instrument where the law strictly prescribes the location of the signature of
the parties thereto. This is in the case of notarial wills found in Article 805 of the Civil Code. In
this case, the parties did not execute a notarial will but a simple contract of agency to sell on
commission basis, thus making the position of petitioner's signature thereto immaterial.

Lim vs. CA (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lim vs. CA (Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lim vs. CA (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Case No.] : Lim vs.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.