08 Lim V. People.docx

[DISTINCTION BETWEEN AGENCY AND SALE] 00 LIM V. PEOPLE November 21, 1984 | Relova, J. | Petitioner: Lourdes Valerio Lim Respondent: People of the Philippines Doctrine: In a contract of sale, the ownership transferes from the seller to the buyer. Whereas in a contract of agency, ownership is retained by the principal and there exists an obligation to return the thing. Facts: ● ●

Lim is a businesswoman. On January 10, 1966, the appellant 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. ○ Agreement states that Salvador Bantug certifies receipt of 615 kg of leaf tabacco from Lourdes, to be sold at P1.30 and the proceeds of P799.50 will be given to the same ● Off the total P799.50, Lim was only able to pay P240 (total of three payments by Lim). ● Demands for the payment of the balance of the value of the tobacco were made upon the appellant by Ayroso, and particularly by her sister, Salud Bantug. 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" the appellant was empty. ● Although the appellant denied that demands for payment were made upon her, it is a fact that on October 19, 1966, she wrote a letter to Salud Bantug stating that she is having difficulty collecting from her buyers since they change stalls very often. ● Filed complaint for estafa in the RTC due to the non-remittance of the remaining balance RTC: Guilty of estafa CA: Affirmed with modifications with regard to the penalty. Issue: W/N the Agreement is a contract of agency to sell or a contract of sale, thereby precluding criminal liability of petitioner of the crime charged? Held:

CONTRACT OF AGENCY TO SELL. It is clear in the agreement that the proceeds of the sale should be turned over to complainant as soon as it was sold or that the obligation was immediately demandable. ● The CA’s contention that Article 1197 should apply in this case is of no moment. ● Petitioner’s argument: She was not an agent since Agreement does not state that she would be paid commission if goods are sold. ○ SC affirms CA: Lim admitted that there was an agreement that she would be given something upon the sale of the tobacco. As a business woman, it is unbelievable that she would go to the extent of picking up the tobacco from Ayroso’s house with a jeep she had brought if there was no intention to make a profit from such transaction. ● 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. Dispositive Petition dismissed Notes Insert notes