Marubeni v.

Lirag
August 10, 2001 | Pardo, J. | Appeal | Burden of Proof and Presumptions Equipoise Doctrine

PETITIONER: Marubeni Corporation, Ryoichi Tanaka, Ryohei Kimura and Shoichi One
RESPONDENT: Felix Lirag
SUMMARY: Lirag filed for specific performance in RTC claiming that Marubeni owed him P6M for the consultancy services he
rendered under an oral consultancy agreement. Lirag alleged that because of his services the Bureau of Posts project was awarded to
the Marubeni-Sanritsu tandem. Marubeni denied having entered the consultancy agreement. RTC and CA found that the evidence
supports the existence of the Consultancy Agreement. SC reversed holding that the burden of proof was upon Lirag to show that
there is indeed an agreement and that the latter has failed to show a preponderance of evidence that such an agreement exists. The
testimonial evidence of Lirags witnesses only show that they learned of the agreement because Lirag told them about it.
DOCTRINE: See Ratio # 1

FACTS: 2. WON Lirag is entitled to receive commission NO

1. Lirag claimed that Petitioners hired his consultancy group
for the purpose of obtaining government contracts on various
projects. The consultancy agreement was not reduced into
writing because of mutual trust between Marubeni and Lirag.
2. Kimura authorized Lirag to work on six projects. Petitioners
promised to pay him six percent (6%) consultancy fee based
on the total costs of the projects obtained.
3. The Bureau of Post project (P100M) was awarded to the
Marubeni-Sanritsu tandem. Despite verbal demands for the
agreed consultancy fee (P6M), petitioners did not pay.
4. Lirag filed a complaint for specific performance in the RTC
alleging that Marubeni Corp and its officers, Tanaka, Kimura
and One, owed him P6M representing his commission.
5. Petitioners deny the consultancy agreement. They allege
that Kimura did not have the authority to enter into such
agreement and that only Mr. Maruyama, the general manager,
could enter into any contract in behalf of the corporation. Mr.
Maruyama did not discuss with Lirag any of the matters
alleged 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.
Petitioners moved for dismissal of the complaint.
6. RTC ruled in favor of Lirag stating the the latter was made
to believe that there existed an oral consultancy agreement.
Hence, he performed his part of the agreement.
7. CA affirmed the RTC stating that there is preponderance of
evidence favoring the existence of the consultancy agreement
such as the ff: (1) he hosted a thanksgiving dinner for the Pet.;
(2) he visited and discussed with Maruyama the project; (3) he
arranged several conference with government officials; (4) the
bid was eventually awarded to the Petitioners. Lirag sent his
bill of services. Tanaka responded that the claim is being
reviewed by the head office and asked for 15-day allowance.
CA relied on the doctrine of admission by silence in upholding
the existence of the consultancy agreement, noting that
Tanakas reaction to Lirags demand letter was not consistent
with their claim that there was no consultancy agreement.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON there was a consultancy agreement NO
RULING: CA decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
RATIO: (both issues are resolved together)
1. A party who has the burden of proof in a civil case must
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. When the
evidence of the parties is in equipoise, or when there is a doubt
as to where the preponderance of evidence lies, the party with
the burden of proof fails and the petition must thus be denied.
2. The evidence could not support the conclusion that an oral
or written consultancy agreement was agreed. Lirag attempted
to fortify his own testimony by presenting several
corroborative witnesses. However, what was apparent in the
testimonies of these witnesses was the fact that they learned
about the existence of the consultancy agreement only because
that was what Lirag told them.
3. Even assuming that an oral consultancy agreement has been
perfected between the parties, Lirag could still not claim fees
on the project that has not been awarded to Marubeni. He
admitted that the project was not awarded to Marubeni but to
Sanritsu. Marubeni did not even join in the bidding of the
project. Lirag could not claim from Sanritsu because he
admitted in his testimony that there was no agreement with
Sanritsu. He also cannot claim that Sanritsu was a sister
company of Marubeni because there is no evidence, other than
his bare claims, to support such allegations.
4.One testified that it was Lirag who offered his consultancy
services. He also testified that such consultancy service was
not given authority by the headquarters in Tokyo as the initial
agreement was pending approval. There was no absolute
acceptance of Lirags offer of consultancy services.
5. Even assuming that the consultancy service was accepted, it
is still not valid. The service rendered by Lirag contemplated
the exploitation of personal influence and solicitation on a
public officer. He was tasked to intervene between Marubeni
and Postmaster General Banayo due to Lirags close personal
relationship with the latter. Any agreement entered into
because of the actual or supposed influence which the party
has, engaging him to influence executive officials in the
discharge of their duties, which contemplates the use of
personal influence and solicitation rather than an appeal to the
judgment of the official is contrary to public policy.