5/3/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
pertinent documents required by petitioners. As petitioners had been impressed with
respondent’s performance, six (6) additional projects were given to his group under the
same undertaking.[7]
One of the projects handled by respondent Lirag, the Bureau of Post project, amounting
to P100,000,000.00 was awarded to the “Marubeni-Sanritsu tandem.”[8] Despite
respondent’s repeated formal verbal demands for payment of the agreed consultancy
fee, petitioners did not pay. In response to the first demand letter, petitioners promised
to reply within fifteen (15) days, but they did not do so.
Pursuant to the consultancy agreement, respondent claimed a commission of six
percent (6%) of the total contract price, or a total of P6,000,000.00, or in the
alternative, that he be paid the same amount by way of damages or as the reasonable
value of the services he rendered to petitioners, and further claimed twenty percent
(20%) of the amount recoverable as attorney’s fees and the costs of suit.
In their answer, petitioners denied the consultancy agreement. Petitioner Ryohei
Kimura did not have the authority to enter into such agreement in behalf of Marubeni.
Only Mr. Morihiko Maruyama, the general manager, upon issuance of a special power of
attorney by the principal office in Tokyo, Japan, could enter into any contract in behalf
of the corporation. Mr. Maruyama did not discuss with respondent Lirag any of the
matters alleged in the complaint, nor agreed to the payment of commission. Moreover,
Marubeni did not participate in the bidding for the Bureau of Post project, nor benefited
from the supposed project. Thus, petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint.
Petitioner Shoichi One submitted a separate answer raising similar arguments.
With regard to petitioner Ryohei Kimura, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
his person because he was recalled to the principal office in Tokyo, Japan before the
complaint and the summons could be served on him.
During the pre-trial conferences held on September 18 and October 16, 1989 and on
January 24, March 15 and May 17, 1990, no amicable settlement was reached. Trial on
the merits ensued.
On April 29, 1993, the trial court promulgated a decision and ruled that respondent is
entitled to a commission. Respondent was led to believe that there existed an oral
consultancy agreement. Hence, he performed his part of the agreement and helped
petitioners get the project. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, defendants are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay to the
plaintiff: (1) the amount of P6,000,000.00, with interest at the legal rate
(12% per annum) from January 10, 1989 until fully paid; (2) 20% of this
amount to serve as reimbursement of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees; and (3) to
pay the cost of the suit.
“SO ORDERED.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52501
2/10