5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly “Makati, Metro Manila, April 29, 1993. “[Original Signed] “SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, Jr. “Pairing Judge”[9] On May 26, 1993, petitioners interposed an appeal from the decision to the Court of Appeals.[10] After due proceedings, on October 9, 1997, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision affirming the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals ruled that preponderance of evidence favored the existence of a consultancy agreement between the parties. It upheld the factual findings of the trial court, thus: “Plaintiff’s evidence details the efforts he exerted after having been extended an appointment by Marubeni as its consultant. He tendered a thanksgiving dinner for the defendants at the Nandau Restaurant; he and Napoleon Rama visited Marubeni’s Morihiko Maruyama in the latter’s office during which they discussed the BOP II project. He arranged several conferences between the Marubeni officials and Postmaster General Angelito Banayo. In one meeting which took place in the office of Mr. Banayo at Liwasang Bonifacio, a Mr. Ida, the General Manager of Sanritsu, was conspicuously present. Mr. Banayo testified that Mr. Ida told him that Sanritsu was representing Marubeni in the BOP II project (tsn., 6/11/90, pp. 15-17; 5/15/91, pp. 10-12). At least thirty (30) conferences between plaintiff and defendants took place at the Marubeni offices, lasting at least two hours each meeting. Eventually, the bid was awarded by the Bureau of Post to Sanritsu. Aware that Sanritsu represented Marubeni, and in fact Marubeni assigned Sanritsu to enter its bid, plaintiff sent his bill for his services to the defendants in a letter dated April 20, 1988. This was followed by a letter dated September 26, 1990 of plaintiff’s counsel. This time Mr. Tanaka asked for 15 days within which to contact their Head Office to seek instructions.”[11] The Court of Appeals relied on the doctrine of admission by silence[12] in upholding the existence of a consultancy agreement, noting that petitioner Tanaka’s reaction to respondent’s September 26, 1988 demand letter was not consistent with their claim that there was no consultancy agreement. On the contrary, it lent credence to respondent’s claim that they had an existing consultancy agreement. Petitioner Tanaka’s response dated October 13, 1988 to the demand letter of September 26, 1988 reads: “Referring to your letter dated September 26, 1988, we are pleased to inform you that the issue is currently being reviewed by us and we would https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52501 3/10