CIC vs. MARK SENSING AUSTRALIA

Communication Information Corporation Vs. Mark Sensing Australia Pty. Ltd, et al.

G.R. No. 192159

January 25, 2017

FACTS:

MS APL and CISC entered into a MOA where CISC was appointed as the exclusive agent of MS APL to PCSO.  MS APL agreed to pay CISC a commission of 24.5% of future sales to PCSO.  Initially, MS APL was complying with its obligation until it stopped due to some irregularities.  Litigations between parties involved in PCSO transactions surfaced until eventually settled by a compromised agreement.  MS APL felt short changed by CISC’s efforts and, then, decided to withhold payment of commissions.

Due to MS APL’s refusal to pay, CISC filed a complaint before the RTC. It reached the court of Appeals. Thus, the present case faced the SC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not  the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by approving the attachment bond whose face amount exceeded the retention limit of the surety.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that RTC did not only correctly applied the law but also acted judiciously when it required Plaridel to submit proof of its re-insurance contracts after MSAPL questioned Plaridel’s capacity to under-write the attachment bond.  With this, SC granted the petition.