Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 912 views

    Silahis Marketing Corp V IAC

    Uploaded by

    purplebasket
    1) Silahis Marketing Corp failed to pay De Leon for merchandise invoices totaling PHP111,741.75. De Leon filed a collection case. 2) Silahis admitted the invoices but claimed a debit memo for an unpaid commission on a sale directly made by De Leon to Dole Philippines. 3) The RTC ruled partially in favor of Silahis by offsetting part of the amount with the alleged commission. However, the IAC reversed, finding no agreement existed prohibiting direct sales or obligating commissions. There were also no documents supporting Silahis' claim. Compensation was thus not possible. The decision affirmed De Leon's collection claim.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Silahis Marketing Corp V IAC

    Uploaded by

    purplebasket
    912 views2 pages
    1) Silahis Marketing Corp failed to pay De Leon for merchandise invoices totaling PHP111,741.75. De Leon filed a collection case. 2) Silahis admitted the invoices but claimed a debit memo for an unpaid commission on a sale directly made by De Leon to Dole Philippines. 3) The RTC ruled partially in favor of Silahis by offsetting part of the amount with the alleged commission. However, the IAC reversed, finding no agreement existed prohibiting direct sales or obligating commissions. There were also no documents supporting Silahis' claim. Compensation was thus not possible. The decision affirmed De Leon's collection claim.

    Original Description:

    Silahis Marketing Corp Case Digest; Obligations and Contracts

    Original Title

    Silahis Marketing Corp v IAC

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Silahis Marketing Corp failed to pay De Leon for merchandise invoices totaling PHP111,741.75. De Leon filed a collection case. 2) Silahis admitted the invoices but claimed a debit memo for an unpaid commission on a sale directly made by De Leon to Dole Philippines. 3) The RTC ruled partially in favor of Silahis by offsetting part of the amount with the alleged commission. However, the IAC reversed, finding no agreement existed prohibiting direct sales or obligating commissions. There were also no documents supporting Silahis' claim. Compensation was thus not possible. The decision affirmed De Leon's collection claim.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    912 views2 pages

    Silahis Marketing Corp V IAC

    Uploaded by

    purplebasket
    1) Silahis Marketing Corp failed to pay De Leon for merchandise invoices totaling PHP111,741.75. De Leon filed a collection case. 2) Silahis admitted the invoices but claimed a debit memo for an unpaid commission on a sale directly made by De Leon to Dole Philippines. 3) The RTC ruled partially in favor of Silahis by offsetting part of the amount with the alleged commission. However, the IAC reversed, finding no agreement existed prohibiting direct sales or obligating commissions. There were also no documents supporting Silahis' claim. Compensation was thus not possible. The decision affirmed De Leon's collection claim.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SILAHIS MARKETING CORP V IAC FERNAN, J. December 7, 1989 FACTS: On various dates in Oct-Dec 1975, De eon doin!

    ! business under t"e name and st#$e o% &ar' (ndustria$ )a$es, so$d and de$ivered to )i$a"is various items o% merc"andise covered b# severa$ invoices amountin! to *++,+1,.75 -a#ab$e .it"in ,/ da#s %rom date o% t"e coverin! invoices. )i$a"is %ai$ed to -a# u-on maturit# des-ite re-eated demands. De eon %i$ed be%ore 0F( &ani$a a com-$aint %or t"e co$$ection o% t"e said accounts inc$udin! accrued interest in t"e amount o% * 111./, and attorne#2s %ees o% * 5,/// -$us costs o% $iti!ation. )i$a"is admitted t"e a$$e!ations inso%ar as t"e invoices .ere concerned but as de%ense3 o *resented a debit memo %or * ++,+// as unrea$i4ed -ro%it %or a su--osed commission t"at )i$a"is s"ou$d "ave received %rom de eon %or t"e sa$e o% s-roc'ets amountin! to *111,/// made direct$# to Do$e *"i$i--ines, (nc b# de eon .it"out coursin! t"rou!" )i$a"is in vio$ation o% usua$ -ractice o 0$aimed t"at it is entit$ed to return t"e stain$ess stee$ screen %ound de%ective b# its c$ient, 5orden (nternationa$, Davao 0it#, and to "ave t"e corres-ondin! amount o% *1,/// cance$$ed %rom its account .it" de eon. RTC: 0on%irmed t"e $iabi$it# o% )i$a"is %or t"e c$aim o% de eon but ordered t"at it be partially offset b# )i$a"is2 counterc$aim as contained in t"e debit memo %or unrea$i4ed -ro%it and commission. Ordered to -a# *1,.75 .it" 1+6 interest o *roven b# t"e testimonies t"at contrar# to a!reement bet.een )i$a"is and de eon t"at t"e $atter .as to serve t"e account o% DO E in Davao, De eon instead so$d it direct$# to DO E de-rivin! )i$a"is o% its commission. o As to stee$ .ire mes", not a.arded because too $ate to -resent c$aim 7returned on$# on A-ri$ 1971 ."en bou!"t on December 19758 De eon a--ea$ed t"e a.ard o% -artia$ com-ensation and non-a.ard o% interest on "is -rinci-a$ c$aim IAC3 Reversed t"e R90 decision and dismissed )i$a"is: counterc$aim %or $ac' o% %actua$ or $e!a$ basis as t"ere .as no a!reement nor contractua$ ob$i!ation -ro"ibitin! direct sa$es to Do$e *"i$i--ines and not"in! in t"e debit memo ob$i!atin! de eon to -a# commission to )i$a"is. ISSUE: ;"et"er or not De eon is $iab$e to )i$a"is %or t"e commission or mar!in %or t"e direct sa$e ."ic" t"e %ormer conc$uded and consummated .it" Do$e *"i$i--ines, (nc .it"out coursin! t"e same t"rou!" )i$a"is &ar'etin!. HEL : No. 0ourt %ound not"in! to s"o. t"at res-ondent ob$i!ated "imse$% to set-o%% or com-ensate -etitioner:s outstandin! accounts .it" a$$e!ed unrea$i4ed commission %rom assai$ed sa$e o% s-roc'ets to Do$e *"i$i--ines. 0om-ensation ta'es -$ace ."en + -ersons, in t"eir o.n ri!"t, are creditors and debtors o% eac" ot"er. Artic$e 1+79 o% t"e 0ivi$ 0ode -rovides t"at3 <(n order t"at com-ensation ma# be -ro-er, it is necessar#3 =1> t"at eac" one o% t"e ob$i!ors be bound -rinci-a$$#, and t"at "e be at t"e same time a -rinci-a$ creditor o% t"e ot"er? =+> t"at bot" debts consist in a sum o% mone#, or i% t"e t"in!s due are consumab$e, t"e# be o% t"e same 'ind, and a$so o% t"e same @ua$it# i% t"e $atter "as been stated? =,> t"at t"e t.o debts be due?

    =A> t"at t"e# be $i@uidated and demandab$e? =5> t"at over neit"er o% t"em t"ere be an# retention or controvers#, commenced b# t"ird -ersons and communicated in due time to t"e debtor. ;"en a$$ t"e re@uisites mentioned in Art. 1+79 o% t"e 0ivi$ 0ode are -resent, com-ensation ta'es e%%ect b# o-eration o% $a., even .it"out t"e consent or 'no.$ed!e o% t"e creditors and debtors. Artic$e 1+79 re@uires t"at %or $e!a$ com-ensation to ta'e -$ace, <t.o debts must be dueB and <t"e# must be $i@uidated and demandab$eB. Co!pe"satio" is "ot proper #$ere t$e %lai! of t$e perso" asserti"& t$e set' off a&ai"st t$e ot$er is "eit$er %lear "or li()i*ate*+ 0om-ensation 0ANNO9 eCtend to un$i@uidated dis-uted c$aim eCistin! %rom breac" o% contract. )i$a"is admits t"e va$idit# o% its outstandin! accounts o% *++, +1,.75 .it" de eon. 5ut ."et"er de eon is $iab$e to -a# )i$a"is a +/6 mar!in or commission on t"e subDect sa$e to Do$e *"i$i--ines, (nc. is vi!orous$# dis-uted. T$is %ir%)!sta"%e pre,e"ts le&al %o!pe"satio" fro! ta-i"& pla%e+ 9"ere is no evidence on record %rom ."ic" it can be in%erred t"at t"ere .as an# a!reement bet.een )i$a"is and de eon -ro"ibitin! t"e $atter %rom direct sa$e to Do$e o 9"e debit memo is not a bindin! contract since it .as not si!ned b# de eon nor .as t"ere an# mention t"erein o% an# commitment b# t"e $atter to -a# an# commission to t"e %ormer invo$vin! t"e subDect sa$e o% s-roc'ets and can be ta'en as se$%-servin! .it" no -robative va$ue absent a s"o.in! or in%erence t"at t"e -art# sou!"t to be bound assented to it content or s"o.ed con%ormit#. o etter .ritten b# de eon:s $a.#er on &arc" 1975 transmittin! its Debit &emo %urt"er stren!t"ened t"eir stand t"at t"e# never a!reed to !ive -etitioner an# commission on direct sa$e to Do$e *"i$i--ines because suc" $etter denied an# uti$i4ation o% -etitioner:s -ersonne$ and %aci$ities. ispositio": Decision a%%irmed.

    You might also like