Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Lim v. Saban

    Uploaded by

    wuplawschool
    This case involves a dispute over real estate broker's commission between Florencio Saban and Genevieve Lim. Saban had an agreement with Eduardo Ybañez to find a buyer for Ybañez's property. Through Saban's efforts, Ybañez sold the property to Lim. Lim then issued postdated checks to Saban. However, Ybañez later asked Lim to cancel the checks and not pay Saban, trying to deprive Saban of his commission. The appellate court found that Saban was entitled to his commission, as the agency agreement was not properly revoked. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that revoking the agreement after the sale was consummated would breach the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lim v. Saban

    Uploaded by

    wuplawschool
    60 views3 pages
    This case involves a dispute over real estate broker's commission between Florencio Saban and Genevieve Lim. Saban had an agreement with Eduardo Ybañez to find a buyer for Ybañez's property. Through Saban's efforts, Ybañez sold the property to Lim. Lim then issued postdated checks to Saban. However, Ybañez later asked Lim to cancel the checks and not pay Saban, trying to deprive Saban of his commission. The appellate court found that Saban was entitled to his commission, as the agency agreement was not properly revoked. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that revoking the agreement after the sale was consummated would breach the

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over real estate broker's commission between Florencio Saban and Genevieve Lim. Saban had an agreement with Eduardo Ybañez to find a buyer for Ybañez's property. Through Saban's efforts, Ybañez sold the property to Lim. Lim then issued postdated checks to Saban. However, Ybañez later asked Lim to cancel the checks and not pay Saban, trying to deprive Saban of his commission. The appellate court found that Saban was entitled to his commission, as the agency agreement was not properly revoked. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that revoking the agreement after the sale was consummated would breach the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    60 views3 pages

    Lim v. Saban

    Uploaded by

    wuplawschool
    This case involves a dispute over real estate broker's commission between Florencio Saban and Genevieve Lim. Saban had an agreement with Eduardo Ybañez to find a buyer for Ybañez's property. Through Saban's efforts, Ybañez sold the property to Lim. Lim then issued postdated checks to Saban. However, Ybañez later asked Lim to cancel the checks and not pay Saban, trying to deprive Saban of his commission. The appellate court found that Saban was entitled to his commission, as the agency agreement was not properly revoked. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that revoking the agreement after the sale was consummated would breach the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Lim v.

    Saban
    jurist

    G.R. No. 163720, 16 December 2004

    FACTS:

    The late Eduardo Ybañez (Ybañez), the owner of a 1,000-square meter lot in
    Cebu City entered into an Agreement and Authority to Negotiate and Sell
    (Agency Agreement) with respondent Florencio Saban (Saban) on February
    8, 1994. Under the Agency Agreement, Ybañez authorized Saban to look for
    a buyer of the lot.

    Through Saban’s efforts, Ybañez and his wife were able to sell the lot to the
    petitioner Genevieve Lim (Lim) and the Spouses LiM. After the sale, Lim
    remitted to Saban the amounts for payment of taxes due on the transaction
    as well as broker’s commission. Lim also issued in the name of Saban four
    postdated checks. Subsequently, Ybañez asked Lim to cancel all the checks
    issued by her in Saban’s favor and to “extend another partial payment” for
    the lot in his (Ybañez’s) favor.

    Saban averred that Ybañez and Lim connived to deprive him of his sales
    commission by withholding payment of the first three checks. He also
    claimed that Lim failed to make good the fourth check which was dishonored
    because the account against which it was drawn was closed. RTC rendered
    its Decision dismissing Saban’s complaint, declaring the four (4) checks
    issued by Lim as stale and non-negotiable, and absolving Lim from any
    liability towards Saban.

    Appellate court promulgated its Decision reversing the trial court’s ruling. It
    held that Saban was entitled to his commission amounting to P236,743.00.
    The Court of Appeals ruled that Ybañez’s revocation of his contract of
    agency with Saban was invalid because the agency was coupled with an
    interest and Ybañez effected the revocation in bad faith in order to deprive
    Saban of his commission and to keep the profits for himself.

    It declared that Lim is liable to pay Saban the amount of the purchase price
    of the lot corresponding to his commission because she issued the four
    checks knowing that the total amount thereof corresponded to Saban’s
    commission for the sale, as the agent of Ybañez. She further contends that
    she is not liable for Ybañez’s debt to Saban under the Agency Agreement as
    she is not privy thereto. According to Saban, Lim assumed the obligation to
    pay him his commission. He insists that Lim and Ybañez connived to unjustly
    deprive him of his commission from the negotiation of the sale, Thus,
    petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the agency between Saban and Yabnez was revoked, thus not
    entitled to sales commission.

    RULING:

    The Court affirms the appellate court’s finding that the agency was not
    revoked since Ybañez requested that Lim make stop payment orders for the
    checks payable to Saban only after the consummation of the sale on March
    10, 1994. At that time, Saban had already performed his obligation as
    Ybañez’s agent when, through his (Saban’s) efforts, Ybañez executed the
    Deed of Absolute Sale of the lot with Lim and the Spouses Lim.

    The Supreme Court held that to deprive Saban of his commission


    subsequent to the sale which was consummated through his efforts would
    be a breach of his contract of agency with Ybañez which expressly states
    that Saban would be entitled to any excess in the purchase price after
    deducting the P200,000.00 due to Ybañez and the transfer taxes and other
    incidental expenses of the sale. Moreover, the Court has already decided in
    earlier cases that would be in the height of injustice to permit the principal to
    terminate the contract of agency to the prejudice of the broker when he had
    already reaped the benefits of the broker’s efforts.

    *Case digest by April Rose B. Tuanda, JD – 4, Andres Bonifacio College, SY


    2019 – 2020

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy