G.R. No. L-5897 April 23, 1954 KING MAU WU,plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO SCI!, defendant-appellant. I.C. Monsod for appellant. J.A. Wolfson and P. P. Gallardo for appellee. !A"ILLA, J.# This is an action to collect P59,082.92, together with lawful interests from 1!cto"er 19#, the date of the written demand for pa$ment, and costs. The claim arises out of a shipment of 1,000 tons of coconut oil emulsion sold "$ the plaintiff, as agent of the defendant, to %as. &a'well (assett, who in turn assigned it to (ortrade )orporation. *nder an agenc$ agreement set forth in a letter dated # +ovem"er 19in +ew oraddressed to the defendant and accepted "$ the latter on the 22nd da$ of the same month, the plaintiff was made the e'clusive agent of the defendant in the sale of coconut oil and its derivatives outside the Philippines and was to "e paid 2 1/2 per cent on the total actual sale price of sales o"tained through his efforts in addition thereto 50 per cent of the difference "etween the authoried sale price and the actual sale price. fter the trial where t he depositions of the plaintiff and of %as. &a'w ell (assett and several letters in connection therewith were introduced and the testimon$ of the defendant was heard, the )ourt rendered udgment as pra$ed for in the complaint. motion for reconsideration was denied. motion for a new trial was filed, supported "$ the defendant3s affidavit, "ased on newl$ discovered evidence which consists of a duplicate original of a letter dated 1!cto"er 19covering the sale of 1,000 tons of coconut oil soap emulsion sig ned "$ %as. &a'well (assett assigned "$ the latter to the defendant4 the letter of credit +o. 20122 of the )hemical an6 Trust )ompan$ in favor of %as. &a'well (assett assigned "$ the latter to the defendant4 and a letter dated 17ecem"er 19"$ the (ortrade )orporation to %as. &a'well (assett accepted it on 27ecem"er 19, all of which documents, according to the defendant, could not "e produced at the trial, despite the use of reasona"le diligence, and if produced the $ would alter the result of the controvers$. The motion for new trial was denied. The defendant is appealing from said udgment. oth parties agreed that the onl$ transaction or sale made "$ the plaintiff, as agent of the defendant, was that of 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil emulsion f.o.". in &anila, Philippines, to %as. &a'well (assett, in whose favor letter of credit +o. 20112 of the )hemical an6 Trust )ompan$ for a sum not to e'ceed 00,000 was esta"lished and who assigned to (ortrade )orporation his fight to the 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil emulsion and in the defendant the letter of credit referred to for a sum not to e'ceed 00,000. The plaintiff claims that for that sale he is entitled under the agenc$ contract dated # +ovem"er 19and accepted "$ the defendant on 22 +ovem"er of the same $ear to a commission of 2 1/2 per cent on the total actual sale price of 1,000 tons of coconut oil emulsion, part of which has "een paid "$ the defendant, there "eing onl$ a "alance of ,#9.9for commission due and unpaid on the last shipment of #9.9tons and 50 per cent of the difference "etween the authoried sale price of 50 per ton and the actual selling price of 00 per ton, which amounts to 25,000 due and unpaid, and #.52 for interest from 1!cto"er 19 #, the date of the written demand. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the transaction for the sale of 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil emulsion was not covered "$ the agenc$ contract of 22 +ovem"er 19"ecause it was agreed upon on 1! cto"er 194 that it was an inde pendent and separate transaction for which the