Phil. Health Care Providers, Inc. (MAXICARE) v. ESTRADA / CARA Services R! "#""$%& / 'an. &, &$$
acts! Ma*icare is a do+estic cororation en-a-ed in sellin- health insrance lans hose Chair+an Dr. Ro0erto 1. Macasaet, Macasaet, Chie2 3eratin- 322icer 322icer 4ir-i 4ir-ilio lio del 4alle, and Sales/Mar5et Sales/Mar5etininMana-er 'osehine Ca0rera ere i+leaded as de2endants6aellants.
3n Sete+0er "%, "77$, Ma*icare alle-edl8 en-a-ed the services o2 Car+ela Estrada ho as doin- 0siness nder the na+e o2 CARA HEA9TH :SER4ICES; to ro+ote and sell the reaid -ro ractice health care deliver8 ro-ra+ called MAXICARE Plan ith the osition o2 Indeendent Accont E*ective. Ma*icare 2or+all8 aointed Estrada as its <eneral A-ent,= evidenced 08 a letter6a-ree+ent dated e0rar8 ">, "77".
Ma*icare alle-ed that it 2olloed a <2ranchisin- s8ste+= in dealin- ith its a-ents here08 an a-ent a-ent had had to 2irs 2irstt sec secre re er+ er+is issi sion on 2ro+ 2ro+ Ma*i Ma*ica care re to list list a ros rose ect ctiv ivee co+ co+an8 an8 as client. :Estrada; alle-ed that it did al8 ith ith Ma*icare 2or the MERA9C3 accont and other acconts, and in 2act, its 2ranchise to solicit cororate acconts, MERA9C3 accont inclded, as reneed on e0rar8 "", "77".
Plainti22 Plainti226ael 6aellee lee Estrada s0+itted s0+itted roosals roosals and +ade reresentati reresentations ons to the o22icers o22icers o2 MERA9C3 re-ardin- the MAXICARE Plan 0t hen MERA9C3 decided to s0scri0e to the MAXICARE Plan, :Ma*icare; directl8 ne-otiated ith MERA9C3 re-ardin- the ter+s and conditions o2 the a-ree+ent and le2t lainti226aellee Estrada ot o2 the discssions on the ter+s and conditions.
3n March &?, "77&, lainti226aellee Estrada, thro-h consel, de+anded 2ro+ Ma*icare that it 0e aid co++issions 2or the MERA9C3 accont and nine (7) other acconts. In rel8, Ma*icare, thro-h consel, denied :Estrada@s; clai+s 2or co++ission 2or the MERA9C3 and other acconts 0ecase Ma*icare directl8 ne-otiated ith MERA9C3 and the other acconts(,) and that no a-ent as -iven the -o si-nal to intervene in the ne-otiations 2or the ter+s and conditions and the si-nin- o2 the service a-ree+ent ith MERA9C3 and the other acconts so
that i2 ever Ma*icare as inde0ted to Estrada, it as onl8 2or P",%%%.$$ and P?.l& as co++issions on the acconts o2 3verseas rei-hters Co. and Mr. EnriBe Acosta, A2ter trial, the RTC 2ond Ma*icare lia0le 2or 0reach o2 contract and ordered it to a8 Estrada actal da+a-es in the a+ont eBivalent to "$ o2 P&$,">7,%.$$, reresentin- her co++ission 2or the total re+i+s aid 08 Meralco to Ma*icare 2ro+ the 8ear "77" to "77>, ls le-al interest co+ted 2ro+ the 2ilin- o2 the co+laint on March ", "77, and attorne8@s 2ees in the a+ont o2 P"$$,$$$.$$. 3n aeal, the CA a22ir+ed in toto the RTC@s decision. Isses!
". hether the Cort o2 Aeals co++itted serios error in a22ir+inEstrada@s entitle+ent to co++issions 2or the e*ection o2 the service a-ree+ent 0eteen Meralco and Ma*icare.
&. Corollaril8, hether Estrada is entitled to co++issions 2or the to (&) consective reneals o2 the service a-ree+ent e22ective on Dece+0er ", "77&:%; and Dece+0er ", "77%.
Held! ell6entrenched in risrdence is the rle that 2actal 2indin-s o2 the trial cort, eseciall8 hen a22ir+ed 08 the aellate cort, are accorded the hi-hest de-ree o2 resect and are considered conclsive 0eteen the arties.
Contrar8 to Ma*icare@s assertion, the trial and the aellate corts care2ll8 considered the 2actal 0ac5dro o2 the case as 0orne ot 08 the records. Foth corts ere one in the conclsion that Ma*icare sccess2ll8 landed the Meralco accont 2or the sale o2 healthcare lans onl8 08 virte o2 Estrada@s involve+ent and articiation in the ne-otiations.
At the ver8 least, Estrada enetrated the Meralco +ar5et, initiall8 closed to Ma*icare, and laid the -rondor5 2or a 0siness relationshi. The onl8 reason Estrada as not a0le to
articiate in the collection and re+ittance o2 re+i+ des to Ma*icare as 0ecase she as revented 2ro+ doin- so 08 the acts o2 Ma*icare, its o22icers, and e+lo8ees.
Civil Law; Agencies; Brokers; Definition of a Broker as Distinguished from an Agent. GIn Tan v. llas, 7 SCRA ? (&$$&), e had occasion to de2ine a 0ro5er and distin-ish it 2ro+ an a-ent, ths! :3;ne ho is en-a-ed, 2or others, on a co++ission, ne-otiatin- contracts relative to roert8 ith the cstod8 o2 hich he has no concern the ne-otiator 0eteen the other arties, never actin- in his on na+e 0t in the na+e o2 those ho e+lo8ed hi+. :A; 0ro5er is one hose occation is to 0rin- the arties to-ether, in +atter o2 trade, co++erce or navi-ation. An a-ent receives a co++ission on the sccess2l conclsion o2 a sale. 3n the other hand, a 0ro5er earns his a8 +erel8 08 0rin-in- the 08er and the seller to-ether, even i2 no sale is eventall8 +ade. Same; Same; Same; To 0e re-arded as the <rocrin- case= o2 a sale as to 0e entitled to a co++ission, a 0ro5er@s e22orts +st have 0een the 2ondation on hich the ne-otiations resltin- in a sale 0e-an.Ge have held that the ter+ <rocrin- case= in descri0in- a 0ro5er@s activit8, re2ers to a case ori-inatin- a series o2 events hich, ithot 0rea5 in their continit8, reslt in the acco+lish+ent o2 the ri+e o0ective o2 the e+lo8+ent o2 the 0ro5er Grodcin- a rchaser read8, illin- and a0le to 08 on the oner@s ter+s. To 0e re-arded as the <rocrin- case= o2 a sale as to 0e entitled to a co++ission, a 0ro5er@s e22orts +st have 0een the 2ondation on hich the ne-otiations resltin- in a sale 0e-an. 4eril8, Estrada as instr+ental in the sale o2 the Ma*icare health lans to Meralco. ithot her intervention, no
sale cold have 0een cons++ated. :Philiine Health6Care Providers, Inc. (Ma*icare) vs. Estrada, %?& SCRA >">(&$$);
