UNILAND RESOURCES VS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

Marinduque Mining Corporation got hold of a loan from the DBP and mortgaged a warehouse lot and an office building lot previously mortgaged by MMC to Caltex, and the mortgage in favor of DBP was entered on their titles as a second mortgage. The account of the Marinduque Mining Corp., with the DBP was later transferred to the Assets Privatization Trust (APT).

Caltex foreclosed the mortgage due to the nonpayment of MMC. APT on the other hand offered for sale to the public through DBP its right of redemption on said two lots by public bidding. DBP subsequently retrieved the account from APT and redeemed said lots from Caltex . A public bidding for the sale of the two lots was held and the warehouse lot was sold to Charges Realty Corp . The office building lot was later sold by DBP to a different buyer. After the aforesaid sale, Uniland Resources sent  two letters to DBP  asking for the payment of its broker's fee in instrumenting the sale of it’s the  warehouse lot to Charges Realty Corp.  Uniland filed a case to recover from DBP the broker's fee.

The Trial Court ordered DBP to pay the brokers’s fee to the petitioner.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the lower court ^..

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner there is a contract of agency between DBP and Uniland in the sale of warehouse lot.

Held:

No. There is no contract of agency, express or implied. The petitioner was never able to secure the required accreditation from respondent DBP to transact business on behalf of the latter. It was always made clear to petitioner that only accredited brokers may look for buyers on behalf of respondent DBP. The contract of Agency is one founded on mutual consent: the principal agrees to be bound by the acts of the agent and the latter in turn consents to render service on behalf or in representation of the principal.