This case underscores that parties entering into a contract have not only explicit but also implied obligations, most critically, acting in good faith. The Supreme Court held that Ricardo Silverio breached his agreement by concealing profits from the resale of property, thus depriving the Almedas of their rightful share. This decision affirms that contractual obligations extend beyond mere payment, demanding honesty and transparency in all dealings.

nn

Hiding Behind Corporations: Did Silverio Defraud the Almedas of Their Due Profit Share?

nn

In 1973, the Almedas sold three lots to Silverio for $200,000 plus a share of profits if he resold them. The agreement stipulated that the Almedas would receive 20% of the net profit from any future sale, capped at $100,000. Eleven years later, Silverio transferred the lots to Silcor USA, Inc., a company where he was the president. Shortly after, Silcor sold the property to Lancaster Properties of Oregon, a partnership that included Silverio. Suspecting foul play, the Almedas demanded their profit share, but Silverio claimed he hadn’t made any significant profit.

nn

Litigation ensued in both the United States and the Philippines. While the U.S. case was dismissed, the Philippine Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in Silverio’s favor, stating that the Almedas failed to prove Silverio’s profit from the resale. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, finding that Silverio attempted to defraud the Almedas of their rightful share. The CA ordered Silverio to pay the Almedas $100,000 plus legal interest, along with attorney’s fees, leading Silverio to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

nn

The Supreme Court then analyzed the key issue: whether Silverio was liable to the Almedas for their profit share when he transferred the lots to Silcor and Silcor sold them to Lancaster. The court considered several factors in reaching its decision. It examined the original agreement’s “whereas clauses,” where the value of the lots far exceeded the initial $200,000 stated. The Court noted Silverio’s admission to the Almedas’ U.S. lawyer, in a letter, that he was obligated to pay them. Additionally, the U.S. court’s acknowledgement of Silverio owing the Almedas $100,000.00 per paragraph 4 of their agreement became vital.

nn

The court then weighed Silverio’s defense: his argument that he never made a substantial profit on the sale of the properties. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized Silverio’s actions, pinpointing two critical aspects: the lack of an explicit timeframe to resell the lots, implying that the lots would be sold in the normal course of business; and the multiple transactions he structured, selling the properties to companies he himself controlled, actions suggesting an intent to obscure profits.

nn

Good faith is central to contractual obligations, the Court reiterated. This implied duty is as important as the explicit obligations in the contract. Good faith involves honesty, transparency, and the absence of concealment in fulfilling one’s duties. While intent is a matter of state of mind, the steps a party takes demonstrate whether or not they’re acting in good faith. In this context, the Supreme Court found that Silverio had failed to act in good faith. Specifically, they looked at the 11-year delay and two layers of transactions to related parties that Silverio employed before a possible final sale.

nn

The court emphasized the inherent obligations in a contract of sale. A buyer must not only pay the consideration but must also perform their obligations in good faith. Here, the facts reveal that Silverio, instead of fulfilling his duties transparently, orchestrated a series of transactions that obscured potential profits. Given these findings, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision but reduced the award for attorney’s fees. Further, the High Tribunal set the applicable legal interest.

nn

FAQs

nn

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether Silverio was liable for the Almedas’ profit share after transferring property to companies he controlled, obscuring potential gains from resale.
What did the original agreement stipulate?	The Almedas would receive 20% of any net profit Silverio made upon reselling the lots, capped at $100,000, in addition to the original sale price of $200,000.
Why did the Court of Appeals rule against Silverio?	The CA found that Silverio tried to defraud the Almedas by selling the property to his own companies, obscuring any potential profits.
What did Silverio argue in his defense?	Silverio claimed he didn’t make a substantial profit from reselling the properties and the Almedas’ claim had prescribed.
How did the Supreme Court assess Silverio’s actions?	The Court found Silverio did not act in good faith due to the prolonged delay in reselling the property and his transfers of the land to companies under his control.
What does “good faith” mean in a contractual context?	Good faith implies acting with honesty, transparency, and without concealment when fulfilling one’s obligations under the contract.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision that Silverio was liable, but it reduced the attorney’s fees awarded and set the interest rate.
How does this case affect future contracts?	This case reinforces the importance of acting in good faith when fulfilling contractual obligations and emphasizes that transparency and honesty are expected.

nn

The Silverio vs. Almeda case emphasizes the indispensable role of good faith in contractual performance. By upholding the CA decision, the Supreme Court signals that deceptive actions designed to avoid profit-sharing agreements will not be tolerated. Contractual obligations extend beyond what is explicitly written, compelling parties to act honestly and transparently.

nn

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

n

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Ricardo C. Silverio v. Eufemia Almeda and Ponciano Almeda, G.R. No. 178255, November 24, 2009