101. Malbarosa v CA

101. Malbarosa v CA, 402 SCRA 108 (2003)

acceptance of an oer must must be made known to the oeror oeror. Unless Doctrine:  The acceptance the oeror knows of the acceptance, there is no meeting of the minds of the parties, no real concurrence of oer and acceptance. The oeror may withdraw its oer and revoke the same before acceptance thereof by the oeree. The contract is perfected only from the time an acceptance of an oer is made known to the oeror. Facts: •

•

•

•

•

Sometime in January 1!, petitioner sent a letter of resignation resignation to Senen "alero and re#uested that his 1$ incentive compensation as president of %hiltectic &orporation be paid to him.  The respondent respondent accepted petitioner's resignation resignation and stated that he was entitled to an incentive compensation in the amount of %()1,!)*.+* to be satised as followso 1$( itsubishi Super saloon car at a value of %((!,!!!.!!. o embership shares of Tradestar /nternational, /nc., a subsidiary. %etitioner was dismayed dismayed and told 0a &osta that he was entitled to no less than %),!!! as incentive compensation. compensati on. The petitioner refused to sign the letter2oer and only put the words- 34ec'd original for review purposes.5 0espite the lapse of more than two weeks, the respondent had not received the original 6etter2oer with the conformity of the petitioner on the space provided therefor. therefor. The respondent decided to withdraw its arch 17, 1! 8er. 8n 9pril , 1+, the :oard of 0irectors of the respondent approved a resolution demanding from the petitioner the return of the car.  The petitioner countered countered that he cannot cannot comply with said said demand as he already accepted the 6etter2oer of the respondent when he a;hether or not there was a valid acceptance acceptance on his part of the arch 17, 1! 6etter2oer of the respondentA "#. ?b@ >hether or not not there was was an eective withdrawal withdrawal by the respondent respondent of said said letter2oer. $%S. &el':

?a@ >hen the letter2oer letter2oer of the respondent was delivered delivered to the petitioner on arch 1+, 1!, he did not accept or reBect the same for the reason that he needed time to decide whether to reBect or accept the same. There was no contract perfected between the petitioner and the respondent respondent corporation.

9lthough the petitioner claims that he had a;