Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    King Mau Case

    Uploaded by

    Glenn Mikko Mendiola
    King Mau Wu sued Francisco Sycip to collect unpaid commissions from the sale of coconut oil. Under their agency agreement, King Mau Wu was entitled to 2.5% commission on sales and 50% of profits over the authorized price. Sycip claimed the sale was separate from the agreement. The court found it had jurisdiction over Sycip as a Philippine resident and ruled in favor of King Mau Wu, awarding commissions of P57,589.88 plus interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over residents in disputes involving contract enforcement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    King Mau Case

    Uploaded by

    Glenn Mikko Mendiola
    46 views1 page
    King Mau Wu sued Francisco Sycip to collect unpaid commissions from the sale of coconut oil. Under their agency agreement, King Mau Wu was entitled to 2.5% commission on sales and 50% of profits over the authorized price. Sycip claimed the sale was separate from the agreement. The court found it had jurisdiction over Sycip as a Philippine resident and ruled in favor of King Mau Wu, awarding commissions of P57,589.88 plus interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over residents in disputes involving contract enforcement.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    King Mau Wu sued Francisco Sycip to collect unpaid commissions from the sale of coconut oil. Under their agency agreement, King Mau Wu was entitled to 2.5% commission on sales and 50% of profits over the authorized price. Sycip claimed the sale was separate from the agreement. The court found it had jurisdiction over Sycip as a Philippine resident and ruled in favor of King Mau Wu, awarding commissions of P57,589.88 plus interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over residents in disputes involving contract enforcement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    46 views1 page

    King Mau Case

    Uploaded by

    Glenn Mikko Mendiola
    King Mau Wu sued Francisco Sycip to collect unpaid commissions from the sale of coconut oil. Under their agency agreement, King Mau Wu was entitled to 2.5% commission on sales and 50% of profits over the authorized price. Sycip claimed the sale was separate from the agreement. The court found it had jurisdiction over Sycip as a Philippine resident and ruled in favor of King Mau Wu, awarding commissions of P57,589.88 plus interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over residents in disputes involving contract enforcement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    KING MAU WU v.

    FRANCISCO SYCIP
    GR No. L-5897 April 23, 1954
    J. Padilla

    Doctrine: A non-resident may sue a resident in the courts of this country where the defendant may be
    summoned and his property leviable upon execution in the case of a favorable, final, and executory
    judgment.

    FACTS:
    This is an action to collect filed by King Maw Wu against Francisco Sycip for the amount of P59,082.92,
    together with lawful interests from 14 October 1947, the date of the written demand for payment, and
    costs.

    King Mau Wuu, agent of Francisco Sycip, sold and delivered 1,000 tons of coconut oil emulsion to Jas
    Maxwell Fasset. Fasset in turn assigned it to Fortrade Corporation. Under an agency agreement executed
    in New York, which was addresse and accepted by Francisco Sycip on November 22, 1945, King Mau
    Wu was made the exclusive agent of Sycip in the sale of coconut oil and its derivaties outside the
    Philippines and was to be paid 2 ½ percent on the actual sale price of sales obtained thru his efforts, in
    addition to 50 percent of the difference between the authorized sale price and the actual sale price.

    King Mau Wu claims that for the sale to Fasset, he is entitled under the agency contract to a commission
    of 2 ½ percent on the total actual sale price of 1,000 tons of coconut oil emulsion and 50 per cent of the
    difference between the authorized sale price of $350 per ton and the actual selling price of $400 per ton.
    As Sycip already made previous payments, King Mau Wu is just collecting on balance payments due to
    him.

    Sycip, on the other hand, contends that the sales transaction was not covered by the agency contract
    dated November 22 as the sales was agreed upon on October 16 and that it was an independent and
    separate transaction for which King Mau Wu had been duly compensated.

    Lower Court Ruling: Rendered judgment in favor of King Mau Wu and denied both the motion for
    reconsideration and new trial filed by Sycip. Sycip filed an appeal, contending that the Court of First
    Instance of Manila has no jurisdiction over the case as the agency contract was executed in New York.

    ISSUE:
    WON the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction.

    HELD:
    CFI has jurisdiction. A non-resident may sue a resident in the courts of this country where the defendant
    may be summoned and his property leviable upon execution in the case of a favorable, final, and
    executory judgment. It is a personal action for the collection of a sum of money which the Courts of First
    Instance have jurisdiction to try and decide. There is no conflict of laws involved in the case, because it is
    only a question of enforcing an obligation created by or arising from contract; and unless the enforcement
    of the contract be against public policy of the forum, it must be enforced.

    The plaintiff is entitled to collect P7,589.88 for commission and P50,000 for one-half of the overprice, or a
    total of P57,589.88, lawful interests thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint, and costs in both
    instances.

    You might also like