5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Aside from the self-serving testimony of respondent regarding the existence of a close working relationship between Marubeni and Sanritsu, there was nothing that would support the conclusion that Sanritsu was an agent of Marubeni. Mr. Lito Banayo, whom respondent presented to corroborate his testimony on this particular issue said, thus: “ATTY. VALERO My question is- do you know for a fact whether the impression you have about Japanese Trading Firm working through Agents was the relationship between Marubeni and San Ritsu when Mr. Iida said that they were working together? “A: I did not know for a fact because I did not see any contract between Marubeni and San Ritsu presented to me.”[31] Contrary to the trial court’s finding that petitioners led respondent to believe that they hired respondent’s services as consultant, the evidence proved otherwise. Petitioner Shoichi One, one of the officers of Marubeni Phils., testified that at the onset, Marubeni Phils. informed respondent that it had no authority to commit to anything, as it all depended on the decision of the principal headquarters in Tokyo, Japan. However, respondent Lirag insisted on providing assistance to Marubeni to get coveted government contracts because Marubeni might encounter difficulties due to discrimination from the government.[32] Despite such knowledge, respondent said that “it’s alright” with him as he “believes Marubeni was an old time friend so he wanted to work for those projects.”[33] Hence, how could petitioners be guilty of misleading respondent on the acceptance of the latter’s offer of consultancy service? With regard to the Court of Appeal’s ratiocination that petitioner Tanaka’s response dated October 13, 1988 to the demand letter of September 26, 1988, amounted to an implied admission of the consultancy agreement, the records showed that, to the contrary, this fact strengthened petitioners’ allegation that Marubeni Phils. lacked the requisite authority to enter into any binding agreement. As explained by petitioner Shoichi One, Marubeni Phils. could enter into a consultancy agreement only after submitting a recommendation to the principal headquarters in Tokyo, Japan. If the office in Tokyo, Japan agrees to hire consultants, it would then give a power of attorney to its general manager in Manila authorizing the latter to enter into such agreement. In the instant case, the parties did not reach the second stage as the headquarters in Tokyo, Japan did not see it fit to hire a consultant as they decided not to participate in the bidding. Hence, no consultancy agreement was perfected, whether oral or written. There was no absolute acceptance of respondent’s offer of consultancy services. Assuming arguendo that the petitioner accepted respondent’s offer of consultancy https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52501 6/10